Ex Parte Veerasamy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2017

13137696 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 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.
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