Balduin, Michael et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

12302374 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2020)

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.
12/302,374 01/15/2009 Michael Balduin 334491US6PCT 6418
22850 7590 01/03/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
BARGERO, JOHN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL BALDUIN, BENNO DUNKMANN,
MICHAEL LABROT, and KARL-JOSEF OLLFISCH
___________

Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 19, 21–30, and 33. Claims 1–18, 20, 31, 32, and
34–36 have been canceled. An Oral Hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47 was held on October 1, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “SAINT-GOBAIN
GLASS FRANCE.” Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed Apr. 7, 2017.

Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

2
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a device and a method for
heating objects and, in particular, for heating and/or bending one or more
glass panes positioned one on top of the other.” Spec. 1:3–5, Fig. 2a.
Claims 19 and 33 are independent.
Claim 19 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
19. A device for heating glass panes, comprising:
a furnace line;
plural supports that transport the glass panes
through the furnace line, the glass panes being placed on
the supports positioned on transport carriages;
a drive device that progresses the transport carriages
through the furnace line; and
plural heating elements provided above the glass
panes in the furnace line, the plural heating elements being
mutually arranged along the direction of transport of the
transport carriages;
wherein the heating elements are positioned
uninterruptedly above the entire furnace line and the
heating elements can be operated and regulated so as to
form heating zones suited to dimensions of the glass panes
along the direction of transport of the transport carriages,
and
wherein the furnace line is divided into plural
chambers arranged along the direction of transport of the
transport carriages, which chambers include chamber
boundaries between the chambers, which chamber
boundaries extend transverse to the direction of transport
of the transport carriages, the heating elements being
positioned uninterruptedly above the entire furnace line
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

3
including heating elements positioned below2 the
boundaries between the chambers, and
the heating zones suited to the dimensions of the
glass panes and the chambers are independent of one
another, and
wherein plural heating elements provided in each of
said chambers, and mutually arranged along the direction
of transport of the transport carriages, are separately
controllable with respect to one another to provide said
heating zones.
Corrected Claims App. 3.

REJECTIONS
I. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yli-Vakkuri (US 6,983,624 B2, issued Jan.10, 2006) and Jacobson (US
4,957,532, issued Sept. 18, 1990).
II. Claims 21 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and Maeda ’130 (BE 1016542,
published Jan. 9, 2007),3 and Bennett (US 5,876,477, issued Mar. 2, 1999).

2 During the Oral Hearing, Appellant indicated there is a typographical error
in claim 19 in the Claims Appendix submitted with the Appeal Brief. See
Hearing Transcript 2–3, 7–8. Specifically, the phrase “the heating elements
being positioned uninterruptedly above the entire furnace line including
heating elements positioned ‘above’ the boundaries between the chambers”
should read “the heating elements being positioned uninterruptedly above
the entire furnace line including heating elements positioned ‘below’ the
boundaries between the chambers.” See id. We note that the phrase is stated
correctly in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the
Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 5. For the subject appeal, we refer to the
corrected claims appendix (“Corrected Claims App.”), filed Oct. 3, 2019.
We further note that dependent claim 21 is not listed in the corrected claims
appendix. See Corrected Claims App. 3–4.
3 The Examiner cites to the Belgian application BE 2005/0130. See Final
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

4
III. Claims 22, 24, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and Maeda ’746 (US 6,240,746
B1, issued June 5, 2001).
IV. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and Schwartz (US 7,240,519 B2, issued July
10, 2007).
V. Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and Sykes (US 5,695,537, issued
Dec. 9, 1997).
VI. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and Schwartz.

ANALYSIS

Obviousness over Yli-Vakkuri and Jacobson

Claim 19

Independent claim 19 is directed to a device for heating glass panes
including heating elements “positioned uninterruptedly above the entire
furnace line,” wherein the heating elements “positioned uninterruptedly
above the entire furnace line includ[e] heating elements positioned below the
boundaries between the chambers.” Corrected Claims App. 3. The
Examiner relies on the teachings of Jacobson for these limitations. See Final
Act. 4–5.

Office Action (“Final Act.”) 6, dated Sept. 8, 2016; see also Appellant’s
Remarks submitted Sept. 8, 2014 for publication information regarding the
Maeda ’130 reference.
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

5
Appellant does not dispute that Jacobson discloses heating elements
“positioned uninterruptedly above the entire furnace line.” Appeal Br. 8.
Indeed, Appellant acknowledges that Jacobson discloses “[a] continuous
heater grid 16” and that “furnace chamber 13 is . . . continuous and
uninterrupted.” Id. Rather, Appellant contends that “the furnace in
Jacobson is not divided into plural heating chambers along the direction of
transport, which chambers include chamber boundaries extending transverse
to the direction of transport of the transport carriages” and that “[t]he
separate frame and roller sections in Jacobson do not comprise chamber
demarcations and do not have chamber boundaries extending transverse to
the direction of transport.” Id.; see also id. at 9 (“The teaching of Jacobson
is of a continuous array of heating elements in a furnace that is not divided
into separate chambers or stations, i.e., where there are no boundaries
exhibiting projections.”).
Jacobson discloses that “[t]he longitudinal walls define a furnace
chamber 13 with a roof 14 and a floor 15, both the roof 14 and the floor 15
being provided with grid arrays 16 and 17 of rectangular radiant heating
units.” Jacobson 4:28–31 (emphasis omitted), Fig. 2. Jacobson also
discloses that as shown in Figure 3 “individual heaters 16a, 16b, 16c, or 16d
can comprise high-temperature ceramic refractory boards or plates, formed
with grooves and receiving resistances heating coils in a meandering
pattern,” that in Figure 3, for example, “one such board is shown at 16a and
has its resistance heater 16a" received in a groove (represented at 16a')
therein,” and that “[t]he heater 16b is symbolically shown to have a grooved
plate 16b' and a plurality of heating element 16b" which can be individually
controlled.” Id. at 4:34–44 (emphasis omitted), Fig. 3. As to the lower set
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

6
of heaters 17, Jacobson discloses that these heater “are masked in part by the
fused cylindrical rollers upon which the glass workpieces ride through the
furnace and thus primarily are provided to heat these rollers.” Id. at 4:61–
65, Fig. 2.
In this case, as correctly pointed out by Appellant, Jacobson discloses
a continuous and uninterrupted array of heating elements. Appeal Br. 7–9;
see also Jacobson 4:28–65, Figs. 2, 3. There is no discussion in Jacobson of
chambers with chamber boundaries between the chambers let alone “heating
elements positioned below the boundaries between the chambers.”
Corrected Claims App. 3; see also Appeal Br. 7–9. Nor does the Examiner
direct us to any such arrangement in Jacobson. See Final Act. 5.4 As such,
the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combined teachings of Yli-Vakkuri and Jacobson disclose the heating device
of claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
19 as unpatentable over Yli-Vakkuri and Jacobson.

4 For the sake of argument, had claim 19 recited heating elements positioned
“above” rather than “below” the boundaries between the chambers, the
Examiner would still lack sufficient evidence to establish that Jacobson
discloses such heating elements, as there is no disclosure in Jacobson of
chambers let alone chamber boundaries between the chambers. See Final
Act. 5; see also Jacobson 4:28–65, Figs. 2, 3.
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

7
Obviousness over Yli-Vakkuri, Jacobson, and any of Maeda ’130, Bennett,
Maeda ’746, Schwartz, or Sykes
Claims 21–30 and 33
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 21–30 and 335 are
each based on the same unsupported findings discussed above for
independent claim 19. See Final Act. 6–13. The Examiner does not rely on
the teachings of Maeda ’130, Bennett, Maeda ’746, Schwartz, or Sykes to
remedy the deficiencies discussed above. Accordingly, for reasons similar
to those discussed for claim 19, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 21–30 and 33.

5 Similar to independent claim 19, independent claim 33 recites “heating
elements positioned below the boundaries between the chambers.”
Corrected Claims App. 5.
Appeal 2018-000208
Application 12/302,374

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19 103(a) Yli-Vakkuri and
Jacobson
19
21 and 27 103(a) Yli-Vakkuri,
Jacobson, Maeda
’130, and Bennett
21 and 27
22, 24, 25,
29, and 30
103(a) Yli-Vakkuri,
Jacobson, and
Maeda ’746
22, 24, 25,
29, and 30
23 103(a) Yli-Vakkuri,
Jacobson, and
Schwartz
23
26 and 28 103(a) Yli-Vakkuri,
Jacobson, and
Sikes
26 and 28
33 103(a) Yli-Vakkuri,
Jacobson, and
Schwartz
33
Overall
Outcome
19, 21–30,
and 33

REVERSED