CORNING INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2020

2020000215 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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. 15/191,961 06/24/2016 Timothy Michael Gross SP15-219T 7892 22928 7590 10/29/2020 CORNING INCORPORATED SP-TI-3-1 CORNING, NY 14831 EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1784 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2020 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): usdocket@corning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY MICHAEL GROSS Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s October 11, 2018 final decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–28, and 30–32 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to alkali aluminosilicate glass articles that are said to be chemically strengthened to achieve a maximum 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 Corning Incorporated (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 2 surface compressive stress that exceeds compressive stresses that have been achieved in similar glasses (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprising: a compressive stress layer extending from a surface of the alkali aluminosilicate glass to a depth of layer (DOL), the compressive stress layer having a maximum compressive stress of at least 400 MPa at the surface, wherein the alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprises: at least about 58 mol% SiO2; from about 0.5 mol% to about 3 mol% P2O5; at least 11 mol% Al2O3; Na2O; and from 4 mol% up to about 13 mol% Li2O, wherein the ratio of the amount of Li2O(mol%) to Na2O(mol%) (Li2O/Na2O) is less than 1.0, and wherein the alkali aluminosilicate glass article is free of B2O3. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Gross US 2013/0045375 A1 February 21, 2013 Comte et al. US 2014/0023865 A1 January 23, 2014 Dejneka et al. WO 2014/120628 A2 August 7, 2014 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, 19–28, and 30–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Comte as evidenced by Gross. 2. Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Comte, and further in view of Dejneka. Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 3 DISCUSSION Appellant does not argue any of the claims separately (see Appeal Br. 10, 12). Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1 over Comte as evidenced by Gross. The remaining claims subject to the first ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1. We decide the second ground of rejection on the basis of the arguments made in support of patentability of claim 1. The Examiner finds that Comte discloses a low boron glass composition with the following composition: Component Claim 1 Comte SiO2 at least about 58 mol% 65–71 mol% P2O5 about 0.5 to about 3 mol% >0 mol% and <3 mol% Al2O3 at least 11 mol% 7–12 mol% Li2O From 4 to about 13 mol% 1–9 mol% Na2O 6–16 mol% Li2O/Na2O ratio (mol%) <1 B2O3 0 (Appeal Br. 14 (claim 1), Final Act. 2, citing Comte ¶¶ 62, 73). The Examiner further finds that these ranges of components and properties overlap the ranges for, inter alia, claim 1, and thus present a prima face case of obviousness.2 In particular, the Examiner finds that “[t]he amounts of Li2O and Na2O in this composition will always result in overlapping ranges 2 The Examiner does not appear to specifically rely on anything evidenced by Gross for the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 9). Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 4 of the Li2O/Na2O ratio” (Final Act. 2). The Examiner more clearly articulates this finding in the Answer by explaining that because the disclosed amounts of Na2O range from about 6–16 mol%, and the disclosed amounts of Li2O range from about 1–9 mol%, the Li2O/Na2O ratio disclosed by Comte ranges from 1.5 (when Li2O is 9 mol% and Na2O is 6 mol%) to 0.06 (when Li2O is 1 mol% and Na2O is 16 mol%) (Ans. 6–7). This range of ratios (0.06 to 1.5) is what the Examiner finds overlaps with the claimed ratio range of less than 1 (Ans. 7). Appellant argues that Comte does not disclose the claimed mol% ratio of Li2O to Na2O, which must be less than 1. Appellant correctly notes that Comte discloses at least one example where the ratio of Li2O to Na2O is greater than 1 (Appeal Br. 11, citing Comte, Example 7, Table 1), and argues that this shows that Comte does not teach an Li2O/Na2O ratio range which always overlaps with the claimed requirement of a ratio lower than 1. Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not explained why a person of skill in the art would select amounts of Li2O and Na2O so that their ratio is less than 1 (id.). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner, a person of skill in the art would understand that Comte teaches that the ratio of Li2O to Na2O ranges from 0.06 to 1.5, which overlaps with the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in situations where the claimed ranges (<1) overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art (0.06–1.5). See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant may rebut the prima facie case by demonstrating “that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 5 achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not taken into account how the different ranges affect the ratio of Li2O to Na2O values (Reply Br. 4). According to Appellant “because the components are inter-related with one another, adjusting one will have an effect on the others,” so that “it is impermissible to assert that the values in each of the ranges for Al2O3, P2O5, B2O3, and Li2O, separately can be chosen from any one of the values in the range while still maintaining a ratio of Li2O to Na2O with the claimed range of less than 1” (id.). However, this argument does not refute the Examiner’s position that the component ranges disclosed by Comte teach an Li2O/Na2O ratio range which overlaps with the claimed range and, therefore, would have been obvious in the absence of a showing the criticality of the claim range of less than 1. Finally, Appellant contends the Examiner has impermissibly picked and chosen elements from Comte to arrive at the claimed range, and that “[t]here is no teaching in Comte that the lowest point in one range should be paired with the highest point in another range, or vice versa” (Reply Br. 5). However, Comte explicitly does teach the ranges, so that a person of skill in the art would have understood that the top of one range could be paired with the bottom of another, and that doing so would have been suggested by the reference. This is sufficient to make out the prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the rejection. Appeal 2020-000215 Application 15/191,961 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 11– 17, 19–28, 30–32 103 Comte, Gross 1, 3–9, 11– 17, 19–28, 30–32 2, 18 103 Comte, Dejneka 2, 18 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11–28, 30–32 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED