Ex Parte Ehrick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2017

13716429 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017)

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.
1-21365 8524
EXAMINER
MORENO HERNANDEZ, JERZI H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/716,429 12/17/2012
1678 7590 10/02/2017
MARSHALL & MET .HORN, LLC
FOUR SEAGATE - EIGHTH FLOOR
TOLEDO, OH 43604
Michael R. Ehrick
10/02/2017 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 MICHAEL R. EHRICK and ROBERT R. FRUTIG
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,4291
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 6—10 and 25—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Final Action dated September 21,
2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed February 16, 2016 (“Br.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer dated August 16, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not
file a Reply Brief.
2 Appellant is applicant Pilkington Group Limited, the real party in interest
according to the Appeal Brief. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,429
The claims are directed to methods for detecting glass breakage
during a process for encapsulating a tempered glass panel. Claim 6,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
6. A method for detecting glass breakage during a tempered
glass encapsulation process comprising:
providing a two-part encapsulation die comprising a first
part and a second part;
disposing a tempered glass panel in a molding cavity
formed in one of the first and second parts of the two-part
encapsulation die, the two-part encapsulation die having at least
one video device and at least one light source;
bringing the first and second parts of the encapsulation
die into intimate contact to form at least one encapsulation
chamber;
activating the at least one video device and the at least
one light source, so that light beams emitted by the light source
illuminate the glass panel to a level sufficient for the at least
one video device to record a series of images of the glass panel;
initiating injection of one or more polymeric materials
into desired portions of the encapsulation chamber so that the
polymeric material is directed into molding contact with one or
more desired portions of the glass panel;
recording a series of images of the tempered glass panel
via the at least one video device;
providing a computer having installed therein dedicated
software for analyzing the series of images of the tempered
glass panel on a real-time basis;
transmitting the series of images recorded by the at least
one video device to the computer;
analyzing the series of recorded images of the tempered
glass panel on a real-time basis;
2
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,429
transmitting electronic control signals from the computer
to an encapsulation process control device, wherein if analysis
of the images shows the tempered glass panel is unbroken, the
encapsulation process is allowed to proceed, but if the tempered
glass panel is broken, within 0.1 seconds or less of detection of
glass breakage, the encapsulation process is aborted.
Br. 9-10 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Myers et al. US 4,957,670 Sept. 18, 1990
(“Myers”)
Watanabe et al. US 2003/0194460 Al Oct. 16, 2003
(“Watanabe”)
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the rejection
of claims 6—10 and 25—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Myers in view of
Watanabe. Final Act. 3; Br. 5.
3 Appellant contends that claims 13, 15, and 17 were amended to depend
from the elected independent apparatus claim 6 instead of the non-elected
and withdrawn independent method claim 11, and, therefore, claims 13, 15,
and 17 should have been considered by the Examiner in the September 21,
2015 Office Action. Br. 5. The Examiner states that claims 13, 15, and 17
were withdrawn as being to a nonelected invention, and, as a consequence,
not addressed. Final Act. 2; Ans. 7. The record does not show the
amendment of June 8, 2015 to have been entered by the Examiner. Claims
13, 15, and 17 are not before us for review.
3
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,429
OPINION
Appellant does not separately argue patentability of the claims aside
from claim 6. Br. 5, 7. Therefore, we specifically address only claim 6.
The remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Myers teaches almost every limitation in
claim 6. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner acknowledges that Myers does not
teach (1) abortion of the encapsulation process within 0.1 seconds or less of
detection of glass breakage, or (2) usage of at least one video device as the
detector. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Myers by
detecting the glass breakage and stopping the encapsulation process as soon
as possible, such as in 0.1 seconds or less, in order to minimize damage to
the mold. Id.
The Examiner finds that Watanabe teaches the elements of claim 6 not
disclosed by Myers. Id. Of relevance to our decision, the Examiner
specifically finds that Watanabe teaches recording images via at least one
video device and related steps. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Watanabe’s
video camera for the detector in Myers’ method to monitor the state of the
glass panel for the purposes of enhancing reliability, safety, and accuracy of
the monitoring process. Id. Acknowledging that the combination of
references does not disclose recording a series of images explicitly, the
Examiner concludes that because (1) Myers teaches continuously monitoring
4
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,429
the glass panel during the molding process, and (2) Watanabe teaches
capturing an image with a CMOS images sensor and/or a video camera
capable of recording images continuously, it would have been obvious to the
skilled artisan to monitor the glass panel continuously with a video camera.
Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that Watanabe teaches only capture of an image of a
cavity portion of an opened mold in order to determine a state of the cavity
portion, and not to determine whether a glass panel breaks during an
encapsulation process. Br. 6. Appellant argues that Watanabe lacks (1) any
suggestion or motivation to take any image of a tempered glass article, and
(2) any suggestion of motivation to take a series of images. Id.
“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the
claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007). The Examiner does not draw on
Watanabe for teaching determination of whether a glass panel breaks during
encapsulation; that limitation is taught by Myers. Final Act. 3. Each
reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. Id.
As indicated supra, the Examiner provides adequate motivation to
combine the teachings of Myers and Watanabe. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
5
Appeal 2017-000615
Application 13/716,429
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that “it is well known
that video devices are used in optoelectronic systems or visual inspection
systems as detectors.” Final Act. 4; Br. 7. Appellant requests a declaration
or affidavit from the Examiner if the Examiner is relying on personal
knowledge for the statement. Br. 7. In response, the Examiner explains that
Watanabe teaches use of video devices as detectors for visual inspection
systems. Ans. 9 (citing Watanabe 4, 10, claims, and Figs. 1 and 4). The
Examiner also points to references of record in the prosecution history that
teach use of video cameras as detectors for visual inspection systems and/or
optoelectronics systems. Id. (citing Ehrick, US 2008/0144044 A1 (June 19,
2008), and Kosaka, US 4,841,364 (June 20, 1989)). Appellant does not
respond to the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant does not demonstrate reversible error on the Examiner’s
part in rejecting claim 6 as obvious over Myers in view of Watanabe. We
therefore sustain the rejection. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 7—10 and 25—30.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—10 and
25—30 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6