Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2018

13951038 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/951,038 07/25/2013 530 7590 11/30/2018 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST WESTFIELD, NJ 07090 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jae Chang Lee 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CPMC 3.0-028 8497 EXAMINER DONG,LIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAE CHANG LEE Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 1 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, SEAN P. O'HANLON, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE- Jae Chang Lee ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Sept. 21, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11. 2,3 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 Samsung Coming Precision Materials Co., Ltd. is the applicant and is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant's Appeal Brief ( filed Mar. 21, 2017, hereinafter "Br."). Br. 2. 2 Appellant subsequently filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on May 15, 2017 (hereinafter "Supp. Br.") in response to the Examiner's Notification ofNon- Compliant Appeal Brief ( dated Apr. 14, 201 7) that includes only the claims on appeal. 3 Claims 2, 7, and 10 are cancelled. See Supp. Br. 2-3. Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to a method of cutting toughened glass. Spec. para. 2. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A cutting method of toughened glass which has been strengthened by having induced a compressive stress in a surface of a raw glass plate, the method comprising: reducing a tensile stress in an interior of a thickness of a cutting portion of a piece of toughened glass where a median crack is to be formed to a reduced stress having a maximum value within the thickness of the cutting portion of no greater than 20 MPa or any positive or negative value therebelow comprising concavely bending the piece of toughened glass such that the cutting portion becomes a trough; while the maximum value of the reduced stress within the thickness of the cutting portion where the median crack is to be formed remains at or below 20 MP a, scribing the piece of toughened glass from a surface of the cutting portion to a depth inside the interior of the thickness of the toughened piece of glass thereby forming the median crack, wherein the depth of the scribing is greater than a depth of layer from the surface of the cutting portion; and then breaking the scribed piece of toughened glass by expanding the median crack in the cutting portion of the toughened glass, comprising restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent than in the state in which the piece of toughened glass is scribed. 2 Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Igarashi (JP 2012-020902 A, published Feb. 2, 2012), Maekawa (US 2011/0095062 Al, published Apr. 28, 2011), and Bayne et al. (US 2011/0226832 Al, published Sept. 22, 2011, hereinafter "Bayne"). 4 II. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Igarashi, Maekawa, Bayne, and Brown (US 8,844,782 B2, issued Sept. 30, 2014). III. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Igarashi, Maekawa, Bayne, and Yamamoto et al. (JP 2010-229005 A, published Oct. 14, 2010, hereinafter "Yamamoto"). ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that Igarashi discloses a method of cutting a glass piece including, inter alia, modifying the tensile stress within the interior of a cutting portion of the glass piece by bending concavely the piece of glass, scribing the piece of glass from a surface of the cutting portion to a depth inside the interior of the glass piece to form a median crack, "and then breaking the scribed piece of ... glass by expanding the median crack in the cutting portion of the ... glass." Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Igarashi, para. 1, Figs. 1-5). According to the Examiner, the 4 We view the Examiner's inclusion of claim 2 in the heading of this rejection as a typographical error because claim 2 has been canceled. See Final Act. 2, Supp. Br. 2. 3 Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 limitation of "restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent than in the state in which the piece of toughened glass is scribed" "can be consider[ed] to be before or after the breaking step," and, thus, "Figure 1 [of Igarashi at step S15] shows the restoring step." Id. at 3. In other words, the Examiner takes the position that that "the restoring step can occur before or after the breaking step, such as in the sequence of bending the glass, then scrib[ing] the bent glass, then breaking the glass and finally restoring the glass to a less bend state." Examiner's Answer 4 (dated Aug. 16, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.") (citing Igarashi, Fig. 1, step S 15). Appellant argues that "[a]s the median crack of claim 1 is formed by scribing, the step of restoring must occur subsequent to the scribing step." Br. 8 ( emphasis added). Appellant notes that Igarashi' s cutting method does not require breaking the scribed glass piece after scribing, as called for by claim 1, because in Igarashi "the glass being scribed ... [is] cut immediately," that is, the glass piece "is broken once [it is] scribed." Id. Independent claim 1 recites "then breaking the scribed piece of toughened glass ... comprising restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent." Supp. Br. 2. We interpret this limitation to mean that the step of "breaking the scribed piece of toughened glass" requires "restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent." Stated differently, we interpret this limitation in claim 1 to mean that "breaking the scribed piece of toughened glass" occurs when "restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent." Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant's Specification which describes that after scribing a median crack the glass piece is cut (broken) when "the toughened glass is restored to the planar state." Spec. para. 68. 4 Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 As such, we do not agree with the Examiner's position that "[c]laim 1 requires a bending step, a scribing step, a breaking step and a restoring step." Ans. 4. In other words, claim 1 does not require a "restoring" step that is separate from the "breaking" step such that it can occur before or after the "breaking" step, as the Examiner asserts. Rather, in the cutting method of claim 1 the step of "breaking" occurs during "restoring the glass piece to a state less concavely bent." In contrast, because Igarashi discloses "scribing" a concavely bent glass piece to brake the glass piece (see Igarashi, Fig. 1, steps S 14, S 15), the step of "breaking" occurs before the glass piece is restored to a state less concavely bent, as shown in Igarashi' s Figure 1, step S 15. Stated differently, claim 1 requires a "breaking" step to occur after a "scoring" step, whereas Igarashi discloses a "breaking" step occurring during a "scoring" step. Accordingly, Igarashi fails to disclose "scribing the piece of toughened glass ... and then breaking the scribed piece of toughened glass ... comprising restoring the piece of toughened glass to a state less concavely bent," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner's use of the Maekawa and Bayne disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Igarashi discussed supra. See Final Act. 4--5. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 3, 6, 8, and 9, as unpatentable over Igarashi, Maekawa, and Bayne. Rejections II and III The Examiner's use of the Brown and Yamamoto disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Igarashi discussed supra. See Final Act. 6-8. 5 Appeal2018-000524 Application 13/951,038 Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Igarashi, Maekawa, Bayne, and Brown, and of claim 11 as unpatentable over Igarashi, Maekawa, Bayne, and Yamamoto. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6