Ex Parte Veerasamy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201713137696 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/137,696 09/02/2011 Vijayen S. Veerasamy JAR-3691-2364 2815 23117 7590 06/09/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIJAYEN S. VEERASAMY, XUEQUN HU, and GLENN A. CERNY Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—4 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plumat (US 3,505,049, iss. Apr. 7, 1970) in view of Pointu (US 3,730,696, iss. May 1, 1973) and Ettori (US 4,824,458, iss. Apr. 25, 1989), as evidenced by Seward (High temperature glass melt PROPERTY DATABASE FOR PROCESS MODELING (Thomas P. Seward, III & 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed Sept. 2, 2011 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Dec. 29, 2014 (“Final”); Appeal Brief filed June 5, 2015 (“Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 28, 2015 (“Ans.”). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Guardian Industries Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 Terese Vascott eds., 2005) (publ. by The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH) (as reproduced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda- lime_glass (last accessed Oct. 29, 2013)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention relates to an improved method of strengthening glass substrates, such as soda lime silica glass substrates. Spec. 11. In an embodiment of the inventive method, an electric field is set in a tin float bath, whereby sodium ions are driven from a molten glass ribbon into the tin bath, producing a stronger glass substrate with reduced sodium content. Id. Appellants present arguments in support of patentability of claims 1 and 12. See generally, Br. 7—12. For reference, these claims are reproduced below. The remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with claim 1, from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). 1. A method of making a glass substrate, comprising: striking a plasma in a tin bath section of a float line at least over a molten glass ribbon, the plasma acting as a positive electrode and the tin bath acting as a negative electrode; and driving sodium ions out of the molten glass ribbon and into the tin bath via an electric field created by the positive and negative electrodes and at least partially present in the molten glass ribbon, wherein the electric field has a magnitude of at least about 2,000 V/m; and forming the glass substrate, the glass substrate having less than 20 wt. % Na20. 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a heat source in the float line so as to increase a temperature of an atmosphere and of the glass ribbon so as to maintain the glass ribbon in a molten state. Br. 14—15 (Claims App’x). 2 Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 The Examiner finds Plumat discloses a method as recited in claims 1 and 12 with the exception of explicit teachings that the method: (1) treats a molten glass; (2) generates free ions in the atmosphere above the molten glass by striking a plasma; (3) produces a glass substrate having less than 20 wt. % Na20; and (4) utilizes a heat source in the float line. Final 4—11. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan would have modified Plumat’s method by including a step of striking a plasma in order to generate the free ions based on Pointu’s disclosure (see Final 8). See generally Br. 7—12. Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Plumat’s method so as to produce a glass substrate having less than 20 wt. % Na20 based on Ettori’s disclosure (see Final 9—10). See generally Br. 7—12. Rather, Appellants’ contend the Examiner reversibly erred in finding the combined teachings of the references disclose or suggest above-listed elements (1) and (4), i.e., treating a molten glass as recited in claim 1 and utilizing a heat source in the float line, as recited in claim 12. See id. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4—16) that these arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning, as set forth in the Final Office Action and the Answer, in sustaining the rejection of claims 1—4 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As explained in the Answer (Ans. 5—7), Appellants’ arguments that Pointu and Ettori fail to teach or suggest, but rather teach away from treating a molten glass ribbon (see Br. 9—12), are not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on these references for a teaching of this feature (see 3 Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 Final 8—10). Rather, the Examiner relies on Plumat, as evidenced by Seward, as describing a method that treats a molten glass ribbon. Final 5—7. With respect to Plumat, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Plumat’s tin bath is held at a temperature above the glass transition temperature (Final 5), but argue the Examiner erred in finding the glass in Plumat’s method is at the same temperature as the tin bath. Br. 9. Appellants argue “[t]he glass on a tin bath is exposed to air on the surface facing away from the tin bath, and thus can be at temperature lower than the tin bath,” i.e., at a temperature below the glass transition temperature. Id. As noted by the Examiner, Appellants rely solely on attorney argument in support of this contention. Ans. 10. Because Appellants have not directed us to persuasive evidence in support of their argument, we are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s reasoned finding that Plumat’s glass ribbon would share the same temperature as the tin bath. Id. at 9. Turning to claim 12, Appellants argue the Examiner reversibly erred in failing to identify a teaching or suggestion of “an additional heat source that increases temperature of an ‘atmosphere and of the glass ribbon to maintain the glass ribbon in a molten state.’” Br. 12. As explained by the Examiner, this argument is not persuasive because Appellants have not explained why the Examiner erred in finding the ordinary artisan would have understood that Plumat utilizes a heat source to maintain the tin bath in a temperature range of 600 to 900°C (see Final 11). Ans. 15—16. We add that Appellants’ argument that claim 12 requires an “additional” heat source (Br. 12) is not supported by the language of claim 12 itself, nor does any other disclosure in the Specification support an interpretation of claim 12 as requiring a heat source other than (i.e., in addition to) the one used to heat 4 Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 the tin bath. See, e.g., Spec. 1 59 (“[T]he plasma may operate to increase the temperature of the substrate, particularly in the surface and/or near-surface regions of the glass substrate”); id. If 103 (“[T]he power to the float bath and/or ribbon may be externally increased in certain implementations so as to help raise the temperature of the float bath and/or ribbon”). In sum, for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and above, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1^4 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. We note that in the Final Office Action, the Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1^4 and 7—13 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1—22 and 24 of copending Application 13/137, 698 and over claims 1—20 of copending Application 13/137,697. Final 2. In the Answer, the Examiner states that every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office Action is maintained, but only lists the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as applicable to the appealed claims. Ans. 3. The copending applications have since issued as patents. Because the scope of the claims in the issued patents may differ from the scope of the claims in the applications used in the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections, we decline to reach the merits of these rejections. We leave it to the Examiner to determine the propriety of the rejections upon return of jurisdiction to the Examiner. Ex parte Jerg, 2012 WL 1375142, *3 (BPA1 2012) (informative) (“Panels have the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.”). 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). 5 Appeal 2016-004122 Application 13/137,696 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation