Laurence Ralph. Morey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2018005633 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/340,670 07/25/2014 Laurence Ralph Morey SP13-218 3738
22928 7590 07/02/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
UTT, ETHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte LAURENCE RALPH MOREY, JONATHAN DAVID PESANSKY,
KEVIN BARRY REIMAN, BENJAMIN ALLEN STEVENS, and
BRIAN PAUL STRINES
__________

Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 2–20, 28–35, 37–41, and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Barefoot et al.2 in view of Allan et al.3 Claims 43–59

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Corning Incorporated.
Appeal Brief dated January 19, 2018 (“Br.”), at 2.
2 US 2010/0035038 A1, published February 11, 2010 (“Barefoot”).
3 US 2010/0009154 A1, published January 14, 2010 (“Allan”).
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

2

are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims on appeal are directed to a strengthened glass article. The
Appellant’s Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a strengthened glass article
according to the Appellant’s invention.

Appellant’s Figure 1 is a cross-sectional schematic view
of a chemically strengthened glass article according
to one embodiment of the disclosed invention.
The Appellant discloses that glass article 100 has a first compressive layer
120 extending from first surface 110 to a depth of layer DOL1 and a second
compressive layer 122 extending from second surface 112 to a second depth of
layer DOL2. Spec. ¶ 27. The glass article 100 is also said to have a central region
130 between compressive layers 120 and 122. Id. The Appellant discloses that
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

3

central region 130 is under a tensile stress or central tension CT, which balances or
counteracts the compressive stresses of layers 120 and 122, respectively. Id.
The glass article 100 is also said to include intermediate critical depths CD1
and CD2 within compressive stress layers 120 and 122, respectively. Id. The
Appellant discloses that intermediate critical depths CD1 and CD2 and the
compressive stresses at these critical depths are sufficient to increase survivability
of the inventive glass article 100 by enveloping or encasing a flaw introduced by a
sharp impact to first and second surfaces 110, 112 of the glass article 100. Id.; see
also Appellant’s Fig. 2.
Representative claim 5 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
5. A strengthened glass article comprising:
a thickness t ≤ 1 mm,
an inner region under a central tension CT, and
at least one compressive stress layer adjacent the inner region
and extending within the strengthened glass article from a surface of
the strengthened glass article to a depth of layer DOL, wherein the
DOL is greater than or equal to70 µm,
wherein the strengthened glass article is under a compressive
stress at the surface CSs,
wherein the strengthened glass article is an alkali
aluminosilicate glass article comprising 0 mol% Li2O, and at least 3
mol % Al2O3, and
wherein the strengthened glass article has a stress profile such
that a compressive stress CSD at an intermediate critical depth of 50
µm below the surface of the strengthened glass article is at least 10%
of CSs.
Br. 11.
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

4

Similarly, independent claims 28 and 38 are directed to a strengthened glass
article and a strengthened glass, respectively, having “a stress profile such that a
compressive stress CSD at an intermediate critical depth of 50 µm below the
surface of the strengthened glass article is at least 10% of a compressive stress at
the surface CSs.” Br. 13, 14 (emphasis added).
B. DISCUSSION
Barefoot discloses a strengthened glass article as illustrated in Figure 3,
reproduced below.

Barefoot Figure 3 is a schematic representation of
a strengthened glass article.
Barefoot discloses that strengthened glass article 300 has a thickness t, an
outer region 310 extending from surface 312 to a depth of layer DOL 314, and an
inner region 320. Barefoot ¶ 29. Barefoot discloses that outer region 310 is
strengthened so as to be under a compressive stress CS. Id. The compressive
stress CS in the outer region 310 is said to give rise to a central tension CT, or
tensile stress, in inner region 320, which balances the compressive stress. Id.
Barefoot discloses that the depth of the compressive stress layer DOL 314 is the
depth from the surface to the point where the measured compression stress is
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

5

reduced to zero stress at the boundary with the tensile stress zone (i.e., inner region
320). Id.
The Examiner finds “Barefoot does not explicitly state the strengthened
glass article 300 exhibits a compressive stress CSD at an intermediate critical depth
of 50 µm below the surface 312 of the strengthened glass article 300 being at least
10% of CSs” as recited in the claims on appeal. Ans. 4.4 Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds:
Barefoot indicates the DOL and CSs [(i.e., compressive stress at the
surface of the glass article)] of a strengthened glass article generally
dictate the frangibility of the strengthened glass article as can be
determined by, for instance, point impact testing and are dependent
upon the process used to strengthen the glass article . . . .
Additionally, given frangible behavior is the result of excessive CT
within a strengthened glass article . . . , one of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate increasing at least one of the DOL and/or CSs in a
strengthened glass article would improve the resistance to fracturing
or cracking.
Ans. 4 (citations omitted).
The Examiner finds that “DOL and CSs, and therefore CSD (which depends
on the DOL and CSs) and CT, are optimizable, result-effective variables for
obtaining a strengthened glass article with low frangibility achieved by varying
parameters known to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 5; see also Ans. 4
(quoting Barefoot ¶ 41).
Based on those findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barefoot’s strengthened glass
article to have a compressive stress CSD as claimed by increasing at least one of the

4 In this Decision on Appeal, we refer to the statement of the rejection reproduced
in the Examiner’s Answer dated March 8, 2018 (“Ans.”), from the Final Office
Action dated January 20, 2017. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

6

DOL and CSs to provide a strengthened glass article which is low in frangibility.5
Ans. 6.
The Appellant argues that “Barefoot is directed to balancing the CSs, central
tension (CT), and depth of layer (DOL) at a given thickness to achieve a
nonfrangible glass.” Br. 7. The Appellant argues that “frangibility is a completely
different concept than making it more difficult for flaws/cracks to propagate into a
central tension region as achieved by the recited CSD to CSs relationship recited in
the claims.” Br. 7. The Appellant directs our attention to paragraph 16 of Barefoot
which describes frangible behavior as follows:
Frangible behavior is characterized by at least one of: breaking
of the strengthened glass article (e.g., a plate or sheet) into multiple
small pieces (e.g., [≤] 1 mm); the number of fragments formed per
unit area of the glass article; multiple crack branching from an initial
crack in the glass article; and violent ejection of at least one fragment
a specified distance (e.g., about 5 cm, or about 2 inches) from its
original location; and combinations of any of the foregoing breaking
(size and density), cracking, and ejecting behaviors. As used herein,
the terms “frangible behavior” and “frangibility” refer to those
modes of violent or energetic fragmentation of a strengthened glass
article absent any external restraints, such as coatings, adhesive
layers, or the like. [Emphasis added.]
Conversely, Allan discloses that
a glass plate is deemed to be not frangible if it either does not break or
breaks with less than five multiple cracks branching from an initial
crack with pieces ejected less than two inches from their original
location when subjected to a point impact by an object or a drop onto
a solid surface with sufficient force to break the glass plate.
Allan ¶ 15 (emphasis added).

5 The Examiner relies on Allan to show that DOL and CSs increase with
temperature and/or immersion time in an ion exchange process. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

7

The Appellant argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Barefoot or
Allan that the CSD to CSs relationship affects frangibility.” Br. 7. Therefore, the
Appellant argues that the rejection on appeal is based on impermissible hindsight.
Br. 8.
The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. Barefoot
discloses that the observed differences in behavior between a glass plate which
exhibits frangible behavior and a glass plate which exhibits non-frangible behavior
can be attributed to a difference in central tension CT. Barefoot ¶ 25. The
Examiner finds that “[s]ince CSD depends on DOL and CSs and CSs is related to
CT, it follows that CSD, and therefore the relationship of CSD to CSs, is related to
frangibility.” Ans. 19. Based on those relationships, the Examiner explains that
DOL and CSs, as result-effective variables, “are modified to give the claimed
CSD.” Ans. 20. The Examiner, however, has failed to show that optimizing DOL
and CSs to provide a strengthened glass article having a desired frangibility as
disclosed in Barefoot would necessarily result in the claimed CSD. See Br. 8
(arguing that the Examiner has not established a connection between frangibility
and the claimed CSD to CSs relationship). For that reason, the obviousness
rejection is not sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–20, 28–35,
37–41, 66
103 Barefoot, Allan 2–20, 28–35,
37–41, 66

Appeal 2018-005633
Application 14/340,670

8

REVERSED