SCHOTT AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 202014926570 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/926,570 10/29/2015 Bernhard Hunzinger 2133.295USU 4054 27623 7590 05/06/2020 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR STAMFORD, CT 06901 EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2020 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BERNHARD HUNZINGER, DORIS MOSELER, FRANK BÜLLESFELD, and ULRICH LANGE Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–24 and 28.3 We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed Oct. 29, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Apr. 10, 2018 (“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Dec. 3, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed May 7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schott AG. Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to the Specification, “[g]lass ceramics are used in a variety of technical applications,” such as cooktop covers. Spec. ¶ 3. “[A] glass which can be transformed into a glass ceramic by a crystallization process and ceramization is generally referred to as green glass.” Id. A conventional process for producing a glass ceramic cooktop cover “typically involves melting of a glass, rolling of the molten glass into a plate shape, and subsequent ceramization in a separate ceramization furnace.” Id. According to the Specification, a drawback of conventional rolling processes is that “thin glass ceramic sheets of a thickness of less than 1 mm cannot be produced.” Id. ¶ 5. One known technique for reducing sheet thickness is redrawing. Id. ¶¶ 9–11. In a redrawing process, a piece of glass is partially heated and drawn longitudinally using appropriate mechanical equipment. If the preform is advanced into a heating zone at a constant velocity and the heated glass is drawn at a constant velocity the result will be a reduction of the cross-sectional shape of the preform that depends on the ratio of the velocities. Id. ¶ 28. However, the prior art processes that use a redrawing technique are said to be “complex and expensive,” and “only cause a small modification in the geometry of the preform.” Id. ¶ 11. The invention is said to provide an efficient method for producing a ceramizable green glass component, “in particular a sheet- or plate-shaped ceramizable green glass component which can be used for producing flat glass ceramic articles” (id. ¶ 12) having “a small thickness, high Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 3 homogeneity, and high surface quality” (id. ¶ 14). Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below: 1. A method for producing a glass ceramic article, comprising the steps of: preparing a glass melt of ceramizable glass; producing, from the glass melt, a ceramizable green glass body as a preform; providing the preform to a redrawing apparatus; heating at least a portion of the preform; redrawing the preform into a ceramizable green glass component, wherein the ceramizable green glass component has a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Name Reference Date Beall Waniuk US 4,467,039 US 9,004,151 B2 Aug. 21, 1984 Apr. 14, 2015 Helvajian Bocko Bisson US 2002/0139769 A1 US 2004/0197575 A1 US 2010/0281921 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 Oct. 7, 2004 Nov. 11, 2010 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.4 4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 4 as indefinite. Advisory Action dated July 3, 2018. The Examiner has also withdrawn the rejection of claim 9 as indefinite due to the language “the temperature critical for Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 4 2. Claims 1–6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Bisson. 3. Claims 1, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Bocko. 4. Claims 7–9, 16–19, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bisson. 5. Claims 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bisson in view of Letz. 6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bisson in view of Helvajian. OPINION Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 103 The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Bisson and as anticipated by Bocko. See Final 5–6, 9. The Appellant acknowledges that Bisson discloses a method for producing “a glass and/or glass-ceramic having one or more layers of conductive oxides, semiconductors, or a combination thereof applied thereto” (Bisson ¶ 136). Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant acknowledges that Bocko discloses that a redraw-type process may be used to produce a laminated sheet made of glasses or glass ceramics. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Bocko ¶ 50). The Appellant argues, however, that the Examiner’s evidence is insufficient to support findings that Bisson and Bocko disclose redrawing techniques that produce a crystallization.” Ans. 3; see Final 2. Because claim 9 depends from claim 7, it remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 5 “ceramizable green glass component ha[ving] a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%” (claim 1). Id. The Examiner contends that Bisson paragraph 136 “points to any suitable glass and/or glass-ceramic material” which “conveys the necessary precursor for glass-ceramics.” Ans. 18–19. The Examiner contends that Bocko paragraph 67 discloses “‘precursor glass’ (i.e. the ceramizable green glass).” Id. 19. The Examiner argues that the term “glass” “conveys substantially 0% crystalline” material, which meets the claim 1 limitation of “a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%.” Id. at 18–19. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner’s evidence and reasoning is not sufficient to support findings that Bisson’s and Bocko’s methods produce a “ceramizable green glass component ha[ving] a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%” (claim 1). The Specification includes the following definitions and description: “[G]reen glass refers to a glass which is directly derived from the glass melt.” Spec. ¶ 20 “[C]eramizable green glass in the context of the invention means that this green glass is suited to be ceramized in a ceramization process and to be converted into a glass ceramic, and also that such ceramization process has just not been performed yet.” Id. (emphasis added) “[F]or the purposes of the invention a ceramizable green glass body [or ‘preform’] is a glass article which can be converted into a glass ceramic article by a subsequent ceramization process.” Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added); see id. ¶ 25. A “ceramizable green glass component” is formed by redrawing a “ceramizable green glass body.” Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added). “[T]he green glass reshaped by the redrawing process, is likewise a ceramizable green glass,” which means that “the redrawing is preferably performed without Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 6 initiating a ceramization process.” Id. ¶ 26. In a ceramization process, the glass is heated to a temperature that promotes crystal growth, producing a glass ceramic article. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25. “After ceramization, the glass ceramic article may have a crystalline content of at least 20 vol%, preferably at least 50 vol%, and more preferably at least 90 vol%.” Id. ¶ 154; see also id. ¶ 108. According to the Specification, known prior art methods used high temperatures prior to redrawing, resulting in crystallization of the green glass during the redrawing process. Id. ¶ 17. The premature crystallization, in turn, resulted in cracking of the green glass body or breakage during ceramization. Id. The Specification discloses that the inventive method “for redrawing ceramizable green glass bodies is distinguished by the fact that the deformation zone is very small compared with the prior art. . . . [I]t is thus possible to subject to a redrawing process even a green glass suitable for ceramization, without . . . initiating an undesired and/or uncontrolled ceramization.” Id. ¶ 35. “The deformation zone refers to the portion of the preform . . . [having] a thickness between 0.95*D and 1.05*d, and . . . a height of not more than 50*D” (id. ¶ 34), where “D” is the ceramizable green glass body’s mean thickness and “d” is the post-redrawing mean thickness (id. ¶ 33). During redrawing in accordance with the inventive method, a heating means in the redrawing apparatus “heats [a] deformation region . . . to a sufficiently high temperature so that a preform located in the deformation region reaches the temperature T2 [above the softening point]” (id. ¶ 47) to develop a deformation zone in the preform (id. ¶ 57). The Specification discloses that “[o]f great importance for the invention is that the ceramizable green glass is subjected to a temperature . . . at which ceramization and/or Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 7 crystallization might start [for only a very short time]. In this manner, a premature and undesired start of ceramization can be prevented in particular during the deformation in the deformation region.” Id. ¶ 50 (emphasis added). “Generally, time spans in a range of not more than 5 s have proven to be non-critical.” Id. ¶ 51. The ceramizable green glass component produced by the inventive method is said to include only a small crystalline content—less than 20 vol%—thereby reducing the likelihood of cracking or breakage during a subsequent ceramization process. Id. ¶ 27. The above Specification description, together with Specification examples comparing the claimed method to prior art methods (see, e.g., ¶¶ 96–120, 147), establish that a ceramizable green glass component having a crystalline content of less than 20 vol% is not the inherent result of simply redrawing a ceramizable green glass body. The Examiner has not identified the conditions used in Bisson’s or Bocko’s methods, such as preform temperature and time spent in the redrawing apparatus deformation region, or otherwise explained why these prior art methods would have been expected to produce a ceramizable green glass component having a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%. Even if the Examiner is correct in stating that the ordinary artisan would have understood the term “glass” as indicating a substantially 0% crystalline material (see Ans. 18–19), the Specification does not support an interpretation of “ceramizable green glass component” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) as meaning a substantially 0% crystalline material. See Spec. ¶¶ 17, 25. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the prior art rejections of claim 1. Because the rejections of the dependent claims likewise are based on the Examiner’s unsupported findings that Bisson and Bocko disclose Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 8 methods that include a step of “redrawing [a] preform into a ceramizable green glass component . . . ha[ving] a crystalline content of less than 20 vol%” (claim 1), we do not sustain the rejections as to claims 2–24 and 28. See generally Final 6–15. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner rejected claim 7 as indefinite, and claims 8 and 9 as indefinite due to their dependencies from claim 7. See Ans. 3; Final 2. Claim 7 depends from claim 5. See Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). Claim 5 recites, in relevant part, “the redrawing develops a deformation zone . . . , the deformation zone being a portion of the preform.” Id. Claim 7 recites, in relevant part, “maintaining a dwell time of the preform in the deformation zone of less than 10 minutes.” Id. The Examiner contends that claim 5 requires that the deformation zone is a portion of the preform, so it is unclear how the preform can be in the deformation zone as recited in claim 7. Ans. 4; Final 2. The Appellant argues that the claim language is clear on its face, but directs us to Specification paragraphs 18 and 34, contending that these paragraphs “clearly define[] the claimed ‘deformation zone,’” and that “claim 7 uses the term in a manner consistent with this definition.” Appeal Br. 6. During prosecution, [t]he USPTO is justified in using a lower threshold showing of ambiguity to support . . . [an] indefiniteness [rejection], because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent. Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 9 Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211–12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Here, we have reviewed the Specification and determine that the meaning of claim 7 is unclear for the reason stated by the Examiner. See Ans. 4; Final 2. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We add the following: As argued by the Appellant, and discussed above, Specification paragraph 34 defines the “deformation zone” as a “portion of the preform . . . [having] a thickness between 0.95*D and 1.05*d, and . . . a height of not more than 50*D.” The Specification also describes a deformation region, which is an area in the redrawing apparatus that heats a preform to develop a deformation zone in the preform. Spec. ¶¶ 47, 57. The Specification discloses that “[w]ithin the deformation region the preform is heated to a temperature . . . at which ceramization and/or crystallization might start.” Id. ¶¶ 49–50. The Specification discloses that “[t]he time span[, or] . . . period of time during which a given glass volume of the preform intended to be deformed by redrawing is at a temperature above the temperature critical for crystallization,” is generally “in a range of not more than 5 s.” Id. ¶ 51. Claim 7, however, recites “a dwell time . . . of less than 10 minutes.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). This language is used in Specification paragraph 52 to describe the time that the preform is in the deformation region. See Spec. ¶ 52 (“The dwell time of the preform in the deformation region in this case is less than 10 minutes . . . in order to reliably prevent undesired ceramization.”). In the event of further prosecution, the Appellant may wish to consider whether the term “region,” rather than “zone,” was intended in the claim 7 phrase “maintaining a dwell time of the preform in the deformation zone of less than 10 minutes.” Appeal 2019-004255 Application 14/926,570 10 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7–9 112(b) Indefiniteness 7–9 1–6, 10 102(a) Bisson 1–6, 10 1, 20, 28 102(a) Bocko 1, 20, 28 7–9, 16–19, 21–24 103 Bisson 7–9, 16– 19, 21–24 11–14 103 Bisson, Letz 11–14 15 103 Bisson, Helvajian 15 Overall Outcome: 7–9 1–6, 10– 24, 28 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation