Ex Parte Nagy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

12900458 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
12/900,458 10/07/2010 Akos Nagy HP3-0903 7835
36787 7590
BLYNN L. SHIDELER
THE BLK LAW GROUP
3500 BROKKTREE ROAD
SUITE 200
WEXFORD, PA 15090
EXAMINER
CADUGAN, ERICA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
patents @ BLKLawGroup.com
cbelleci @ BLKLawGroup .com
blynn @ BLKLawGroup. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKOS NAGY, PHILIP PLANT, KEVIN WEHNER, and
JASON SATTESON
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Akos Nagy et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 2—13 and 17—20. Appeal Br. 5.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies HP3 Software, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “glass processing equipment with
. . . a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter.” Spec. 13. Claim 2, reproduced
below from page 24 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief with paragraph
structure added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. An Insulated Glass (IG) line with a dynamic batch-less
direct feed cutter further including a buffer storage unit
downstream of the cutter and having
i) at least one storage rack defining a plurality of lite
storage locations,
ii) a storage rack feeding unit configured to place lites
into any storage location of each storage rack, and
iii) a storage rack unloading unit configured to take lites
from any storage location of each storage rack.
REJECTIONS
Claims 2—13 and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention.
Claims 2 and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wirsam (US 7,255,253 B2, issued Aug. 14, 2007).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wirsam, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA1”), and
Lisec (US 5,685,437, issued Nov. 11, 1997).
2
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wirsam and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA2”).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejections
The Examiner determines all of the claims to be indefinite for a
variety of reasons (Final Act. 5—8), each of which is discussed in turn below.
“Dynamic Batch-Less Direct Feed Cutter”
The Examiner determines that “a dynamic batch-less direct feed
cutter” as recited in claims 2 and 17 is indefinite because “the scope of what
is encompassed by this limitation and what is excluded by this limitation is
not clear,” as the claims do not specify what is being fed or how such
feeding is “direct.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner similarly finds the same
language, as well as “dynamic batch-less cutting table” in claim 8, to be
indefinite because “it is unclear how or in what regard the cutter/cutting
table itself is considered to be ‘dynamic’ or ‘batch-less’ as claimed.” Id. at
5—7; see also Ans. 16—19.
Appellants traverse, arguing one of ordinary skill would understand
that a “direct feed cutter in the IG line as shown and described is a cutting
table integrated into the IG line, as opposed to off-line/separated from the
remaining elements of the IG line.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants further argue
that “the [Specification defines that the term ‘[djynamic’ within the
3
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
meaning of this application defines that the schedule can be altered
throughout the production run.” Id.', see also Spec. 131. Continuing,
Appellants assert that “[t]he dynamic term references the ability of the
scheduler to ‘re-optimize’ the schedule following a given set of production,
such as after each IGU [(Insulated Glass Unit)] is assembled, whereby the
position of an IGU can change in the final production schedule as the
scheduler re-schedules.” Appeal Br. 12. Regarding “batch-less,” Appellants
assert that the term “is described in the [Specification as referencing a
scheduler not limited to consideration of glass workpieces within a single
schedule and not limited to that which utilizes a fixed pool of inputs of
potential glass work pieces to be scheduled for that batch production run.”
Id. at 13. Appellants also argue that “[bjatchless would mean without
batches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Reply Br. 2.
A claim is indefinite when it contains language that is “ambiguous,
vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining
the claimed invention.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see also In re McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566,
*5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential). The indefmiteness determination
is “based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
entire written description and developing prosecution history.” Packard,
751 F.3d at 1312.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Specification
contrasts a batch-type insulated glass line, in which production runs are not
altered, with a dynamic insulated glass line, in which the insulated glass unit
destination for a given glass work piece can change during operation. See
4
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Spec. H 40-41. The Specification also sets forth that “[t]he dynamic term
references the ability of the scheduler to ‘re-optimize’ the schedule
following a given set of production . . . whereby the position of an IGU can
change in the final production schedule as the scheduler re-schedules.” Id.
141. The Specification explains that allowing the production run to be
altered during operation facilitates the generation of replacement pieces for
any work pieces that may be broken during the production run. Id. 42—
43. Additionally, the Specification explains that a direct feed cutting table is
one that is a component of the cutting line. Id. at || 38—39. Thus, when
considering the claim language in view of the Specification, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter and
a dynamic batch-less cutting table to be a cutter or cutting table that is a
component of the cutting line and has a production schedule that can be
altered during use.
Because this is the only indefmiteness issue raised by the Examiner in
connection with claims 2, 5, 6, and 7, we do not sustain the rejection of those
claims as being indefinite.
“IGUs”
The Examiner determines that claim 8 is indefinite because “the claim
has not identified what is meant by the acronym ‘IGUs’.” Final Act. 8.
(emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that this term is well-known in the
industry. Appeal Br. 14.
As the Specification defines “IGU” as insulated glass unit (Spec. 1 6),
we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the
5
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
claim language in view of the Specification, would understand the meaning
of IGU to be an insulated glass unit.
“Unloading Station”
The Examiner determines that claims 8 and 17 are indefinite because
they recite an unloading station for removing finished IGUs from the IG line
and “it is unclear how or in what regard the unloading station removes IGUs
from itself.” Final Act. 8. Appellants argue that “the unloading station is
clearly part of the IG line and its purpose is for removing finished IGUs
from the IG line as will be understood by [one] of ordinary skill in the art.”
Appeal Br. 14.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Specification sets
forth that the unloading station is located at the end of the IG assembly line
and includes storage racks. Spec. 153. Thus, when considering the claim
language in view of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the unloading station is the terminal part of the IG line at
which assembled IGUs are positioned until they are removed from the IG
line.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
The Examiner determines that “[t]here are several positively recited
limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner identifies examples of such limitations in claims 3,4, 10, and
19 and notes that “[t]his is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such
occurrences.” Id.
6
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Appellants fail to address this rejection. Appeal Br. 10-14.
Accordingly, Appellants have waived any argument of error and summary
affirmance of the rejection is warranted. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without
consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant
fails to contest a ground of rejection). However, as the Examiner has only
provided reasoning for the rejection of claims 3,4, 10, and 19, it is only the
rejection of these claims that we sustain. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (setting forth the requirements for a prima facie
rejection). Although we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, and 19 as
being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the indefmiteness
does not impact our consideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
and 103.
“Intervening Spacer”
The Examiner determines that claims 8 and 17 are indefinite because
the recitation of an “intervening spacer” is unclear. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants fail to address this rejection. Appeal Br. 10-14. Accordingly,
Appellants have waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain
this rejection of claims 8 and 17. As claims 9—13 depend from and
incorporate the recitations of claim 8, we also sustain the indefmiteness
rejection of these claims. As claims 18—20 depend from and incorporate the
recitations of claim 17, we also sustain the indefmiteness rejection of these
claims. Although we sustain the rejection of claims 8—13 and 17—20 as
being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the indefmiteness
7
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
does not impact our consideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
and 103.
Anticipation Rejection
Claims 2 and 5
The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 2. Final Act. 8—10. More specifically, the Examiner
finds, inter alia, that Wirsam discloses a dynamic batch-less direct feed
cutter. Id. at 9—10 (citing Wirsam 2:20-42, 3:15—4:12, 5:40-43, 6:25—51,
7:1—28, 9:50, Figs. 1, 3; Spec. 131 (defining “dynamic”)).
Appellants traverse, arguing that Wirsam “fails to teach or suggest the
claimed dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter, and clearly teaches away from
this structure.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue
that Wirsam does not disclose a buffer as claimed. Id. at 17.
Initially, we note that a “teaching away” argument is inapplicable to
an anticipation rejection. Regarding Appellants’ substantive arguments,
Appellants merely quote paragraphs from the background and summary
sections of Wirsam and make a conclusory statement that Wirsam does not
disclose a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter or buffer. Id. at 15—17.
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, and, thus,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in the absence of factual
evidence or technical reasoning apprising us of Examiner error.
Furthermore, the portions of Wirsam quoted by Appellants disclose that
Wirsam’s production line “react[s] in flexible manner to malfunctions” and
8
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
includes an “interim buffer,” which seems contradictory to Appellants’
assertions. Id. at 17; see also Wirsam 3:13—37.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and its dependent
claim 5, which is not argued separately, as being anticipated by Wirsam.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 2 and further requires “a
plurality of work piece supply racks adjacent the feeding table.” Appeal Br.
24 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses such storage
racks. Final Act. 10 (citing Wirsam 5:4—15, Fig. 1).
Appellants argue that “[tjhere are no racks within the meaning of the
glass processing art shown in [Wirsam] adjacent the deposition table 18.”
Appeal Br. 17.
“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.” In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Appellants’ arguments are
presented in conclusory fashion with no supporting evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning, and thus fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated
by Wirsam.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 2 and further requires “a
dynamic Insulated Glass Unit assembly line scheduler providing production
control on the IG line including the cutter.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
9
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses such a scheduler. Final Act. 11
(citing Wirsam 7:18—36).
Appellants argue that Wirsam “fails to teach or suggest the claimed
dynamic Insulated Glass Unit assembly line scheduler as claimed.” Appeal
Br. 18.
Appellants’ arguments again fail to address the Examiner’s findings
as set forth in the rejection and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by
Wirsam.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam, AAPA1, andLisec
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends directly from claim 2 and further requires “a
tempered glass supply adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor
wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively receive tempered glass lites
from the tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses an insulated glass line substantially as
recited in claim 3, including, inter alia, the insertion of special ESG or VSG
glass panes into the insulated glass line via interim buffer 80. Final Act. 11.
The Examiner notes that Official Notice “that tempered-type toughened
safety glass is a well-known and widely-used type of toughened safety
glass” was taken in a prior Office Action, and reasons that because
Appellants did not traverse the Official Notice, it is taken to be admitted
prior art (“AAPA1”). Id. at 12. The Examiner further reasons that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute tempered
10
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
glass in place of Wirsam’s ESG or VSG toughened glass “for the purpose of
providing a known type of toughened glass pane that has known beneficial
properties” and because “such amounts to the simple substitution of one
known element... for another ... to obtain predictable results.” Id.
Appellants respond by quoting a portion of the rejection and arguing
that there is no “teaching of providing an ADDITIONAL tempered glass
supply and providing this adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor
as set forth in the claims. Merely substituting one type of glass with another
fails to meet the claim limitation.” Appeal Br. 18—19.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Initially, Appellants’
reference to an “additional” tempered glass supply is confusing, as there is
no requirement for a glass supply, tempered or otherwise, in parent claim 2.
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 L.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Moreover,
Appellants’ conclusory arguments fail to address the rejection as set forth by
the Examiner and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error. Lor example, the
Examiner’s rejection states that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill to hold tempered glass panes in Lisec’s harp racks positioned
adjacent Wirsam’s interim buffer to “minimize^ damage to the glass panes,
and [to] minimize^ the size of the glass supply.” Final Act. 13. Appellants
have not persuasively set forth any error in the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning.
Appellants also assert that “[t]here is no admitted prior art which
remotely suggests a tempered glass supply adjacent the claimed buffer
storage unit feeding conveyor wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively
11
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
receive tempered glass lites from the tempered glass supply in the IG line as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 20.
As the admitted prior art relied upon by the Examiner is simply that
“tempered-type toughened safety glass is a well-known and widely-used
type of toughened safety glass” (Final Act. 12), Appellants’ argument is
unresponsive to the rejection as set forth by the Examiner and, thus, fails
persuasively to identify any Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 3 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends directly from claim 3 and further requires “the
tempered glass supply is formed of a plurality of harp racks, each rack
having a plurality of tempered glass lite storage locations.” Appeal Br. 24
(Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec as set
forth above regarding the rejection of claim 3, and further finds that “the use
of plural harp racks, each rack having a plurality of storage locations, for
storing glass panes is well-known” and relies on Lisec to “teach[] the use of
a plurality of such harp racks.” Final Act. 12—13 (citing Lisec 3:37-49).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide Lisec’s harp racks in Wirsam’s IG line
to provide and hold a plurality of the tempered glass panes . . .
to be (directly) supplied to the buffer 80, for the purpose of
providing such tempered glass panes in a manner that
minimizes damage to the glass panes, and that minimizes the
size of the glass supply, as explicitly taught by Lisec.
Id. at 13 (citing Lisec 1:5—37, 4:3—19).
12
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Appellants argue that there is no “teaching of using harp racks
adjacent the claimed buffer storage unit feeding conveyor as the claimed
tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellants’ conclusory argument fails to address the rejection as set
forth by the Examiner, which positions Lisec’s harp racks adjacent Wirsam’s
interim buffer to “minimize[] damage to the glass panes, and [to] minimize^
the size of the glass supply.” Final Act. 13. Appellants’ arguments fail to
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 4 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam and AAPA2
Appellants argue claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 together. Appeal Br.
20—22. We select claim 8 as representative, treating claims 11—13, 17, and
18 as standing or falling with representative claim 8. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Independent claim 8 recites:
8. An Insulated Glass (IG) line comprising
a) A dynamic batch-less cutting table;
b) A breakout table adjacent the cutting table and adapted
to receive lites from the cutting table;
c) A buffer storage unit downstream of the breakout table
and having
i) at least one storage rack defining a plurality of
lite storage locations,
ii) a storage rack feeding unit configured to place
lites into any storage location of each storage rack, and
iii) a storage rack unloading unit configured to take
lites from any storage location of each storage rack;
13
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
d) A buffer storage unit feeding conveyor receiving lites
from the breakout table and feeding the lites to the storage rack
feeding unit;
e) A washer for washing lites downstream of the storage
rack unloading unit;
f) A spacer applicator for selectively attaching spacers to
lites downstream of the washer;
g) An assembler for coupling multiple lites with an
intervening spacer downstream of the spacer applicator;
h) An unloading station for removing finished IGUs from
the IG line downstream of the assembler.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (with some paragraph structure added). The
Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses an insulated glass line as described
above regarding the anticipation rejection, and further discloses a breakout
table and a buffer storage unit feeding conveyor. Final Act. 13—14. The
Examiner further finds that “Wirsam does not explicitly teach a washer, a
spacer applicator, an assembler, or an unloading station.” Id. at 14. The
Examiner
note[s] that [Appellants] admit[] that the portion of the IG line
that is downstream from the output conveyor 34 of the buffer
station (32+30+34) is known. In particular, note that
[Appellants] admit[] in paragraph 0050 that “[T]he output
conveyor 34 will feed the appropriate lites in the appropriate
order for forming IGUs to a conveyor 40 at the beginning of
what is a conventional IG line".
Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner reproduces paragraphs 50—53 of the
Specification, with emphasis added, and reasons that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute^ the known IG processing line taught by AAPA2,
including the washer, the spacer applicator, the assembler, and
the unloading station . . ., for the generic further IG processing
line taught by Wirsam, noting that such amounts to the simple
14
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
substitution of one known element (i.e., the known IG line from
AAPA2) for another (the generic IG line 90 from Wirsam) to
obtain predictable results (i.e., predictable results in the form of
the manufacture of insulated glass units).
Id. at 14—15 (citing Spec. ^fl[ 50-53, Figs. 1—2; Wirsam 7:17, Figs. 1, 3).
Appellants traverse, first arguing that “[Wirsam] fails to teach or
suggest the claimed dynamic batch-less cutting table.” Appeal Br. 21.
(emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth
above regarding the rejection of claim 2.
Next, Appellants argue that Wirsam “clearly teaches away from this
structure as noted above. [Wirsam] expressly teaches a batched based
system and uses sub-plates to accommodate the subsequent lots. [Wirsam]
expressly teaches away from the present claimed invention.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. A reference teaches away
from a claimed invention or a proposed modification if “a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by
disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In
re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’ conclusory
argument fails to set forth any such discouragement, and, thus, fails to
apprise us of error.
15
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
Finally, Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s interpretation of
admitted prior art, arguing that “[t]he elements of the disclosed IG line
operate in a conventional fashion, but that does not make the combination of
these elements in the claimed arrangement admitted prior art.” Appeal Br.
21. Continuing, Appellants “admit that washers in the art are known in the
abstract, spacer applicators in the art are known, as are assemblers” and that
“[tjhese elements will form an IGU in a conventional fashion and in that
sense form a conventional IG line.” Id. at 21—22. However, Appellants
argue, “the IG line as shown and claimed is not an admitted prior art IG
line.” Id. at 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly noted
by the Examiner, paragraph 50 of the Specification discloses that once the
lites are removed from the buffer storage rack and placed on conveyor 40,
the lites are fed in the appropriate order for forming IGUs into a
“conventional IG line.” Paragraphs 51—53 go on to describe the aspects of
such a known IG line, describing each of elements e) through h) of claim 8.
We further note that the Background of the Invention section of the
Specification also describes these claim elements as being conventional. See
Spec. H26—29. Moreover, although Appellants argue that the “the IG line
as shown and claimed” is somehow different (Appeal Br. 21—22), Appellants
do not provide any explanation for their conclusory argument, and thus fail
to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. For example, Appellants
do not dispute the Examiner’s expressed reasoning setting forth why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to employ what
Appellants’ Specification describes as a conventional IP line for the “extant
16
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
further processing 90” downstream of Wirsam’s interim buffer 80. See
Wirsam 7:4—7; see also Final Act. 15.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable over Wirsam and AAPA2
Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1
Appellants argue claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 together. Appeal Br. 22—23
We select claim 9 as representative, treating claims 10, 19, and 20 as
standing or falling with representative claim 9.
Claim 9 depends directly from claim 8 and further requires “a
tempered glass supply adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor
wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively receive tempered glass lites
from the tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Wirsam and AAPA2 disclose the insulated glass line as
described above regarding the rejection of claim 8. Final Act. 16. The
Examiner relies on AAPA1 and Lisec as described above regarding the
rejection of claims 3 and 4. Id. at 17—18.
Appellants traverse, first making arguments similar to those advanced
with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 8. Appeal Br. 22. These
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Appellants also argue that “[t]he suggestion that the stated
combination is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is ludicrous when
these teachings are considered as a whole.” Id. Continuing, Appellants
assert that “[t]he [Ejxaminer is merely pointing out existing bits and pieces
in the prior art, and when that cannot even be found is merely suggesting
17
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
such teachings are known, and reconstructing the prior art based upon the
use of the claims as a blueprint for hindsight reconstruction.” Id. at 22—23.
Appellants’ inflammatory language is conclusory and unresponsive to
the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Appellants continue to make
broad, general allegations without specifically identifying error or providing
supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning. To the extent that
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly used hindsight, the argument is
of no import where, as here, the Examiner provides a rationale for the
modifications that we determine is supported adequately by sufficient facts.
See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec,
and AAPA1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—13 and 17—20 as being
indefinite is affirmed as to claims 3, 4, 8—13, and 17—20, and reversed as to
claims 2 and 5—7.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 5—7 as being
anticipated by Wirsam is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3 and 4 as being
unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 as
being unpatentable over Wirsam and AAPA2 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1 is affirmed.
18
Appeal 2016-001838
Application 12/900,458
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
19