Melissa Danielle. Cremer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

14371261 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
14/371,261 07/09/2014 Melissa Danielle Cremer SP12-006 8556
22928 7590 12/27/2019
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, CHINESSA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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 MELISSA DANIELLE CREMER, STEVEN BRUCE DAWES,
SHANDON DEE HART, and LISA ANN HOGUE
____________

Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
14/371,261 (“the ’261 Application”) filed July 9, 2012; the Final Office
Action dated Jan. 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 3,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated July 31, 2018 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 28, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 16–20, which
constitute all the non-withdrawn claims pending in Application 14/371,261.3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
The subject matter of the invention relates to glass or glass-ceramic
articles having nanoporous coatings disposed thereon such that the coated
articles exhibit improved reflection resistance. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
1. A coated article, comprising:
a chemically strengthened glass or glass-ceramic substrate; and
a nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating comprising a
cured siloxane or a cured silsesquioxane having an average thickness
of less than or equal to 1 micrometer disposed on at least a portion of
a surface of the glass or glass-ceramic substrate;
wherein the nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating has a
porosity comprising at least 5 volume percent of a total volume
occupied by the nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating;
wherein an average longest cross-sectional dimension of pores
in the nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating is less than or
equal to about 100 nanometers and the pores are dispersed throughout
the coating;

2 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 Br. 3.
3 According to the Final Office Action, claims 9–15 are withdrawn from
consideration; claims 5 and 7 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

3
wherein the coated article has a specular reflectance that is less
than or equal to about 85 percent of a specular reflectance of the glass
or glass-ceramic substrate alone across a visible light spectrum; and
wherein the nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating has a
specular reflectance of less than 5 percent across the visible light
spectrum.
Appeal Br. 15.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Gallahger et al.
(“Gallahger”)
US 2003/0001239 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Amin et al.
(“Amin”)
US 2009/0197048 A1 Aug. 6, 2009
Wada et al.
(“Wada”)4
US 2011/0089385 A1 Apr. 21. 2011
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 16–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)5 over Wada in view of Amin, and further in view
of Gallahger. Final Act. 3–12.

4 Wada issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,506,853 B2 on Aug. 13, 2013. For
consistency in the record, we refer to the paragraph numbers in the published
application that were used by Appellant and the Examiner.
5 Because this application was filed before the March 16, 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

4
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant
argues for patentability of claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 16–20 as a group, and makes
additional patentability arguments for each of claims 6, 8, and 16. Id. at 6–
13. We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–4 and 17–20. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We separately address claim 1 and each of claims
6, 8, and 16 below.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Wada teaches a coated article comprising a
glass substrate and a porous Si-containing polymer coatings comprising a
cured silsesquioxane having a thickness of about 0.05 to about 1.5 µm
(which reads on the claimed average thickness) disposed on at least a portion
of a surface of the glass. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Wada
discloses that pores are dispersed throughout the coating. Id. The Examiner
finds that Wada teaches the porous Si-containing polymeric coating has a
specular reflectance of up to 3% in a wavelength range of 450 to 650 nm.
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner finds that Amin teaches a coated article comprising a
chemically strengthened glass or glass-ceramic substrate and a Si-containing
coating disposed on at least a portion of a surface of the glass. Id. at 4.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention (“POSITA”) would have found it obvious to use Amin’s
chemically-strengthened glass substrate in Wada’s coated article in order to
impart damage resistance. Id.
Wada fails to teach a nanoporous Si-containing polymer coating
having a porosity as claimed (at least 5 volume percent of a total volume
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

5
occupied by the nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating) according to
the Examiner. Id. However, the Examiner finds that Gallahger teaches,
inter alia, a nanoporous Si-containing polymeric coating having a porosity
comprising ≥ 30% by volume (which reads on the claimed volume percent
range) wherein the pores have a mean pore size of from 2.75 to 20 nm
(which reads on the claimed average longest cross-sectional dimension of
pores), and the pores are dispersed throughout the coating. Id. at 4–5. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the
pore size and porosity of Gallahger in Wada’s article “in order to provide a
material having low stress, low dielectric constant, low refractive index,
improved toughness and improved compliance during mechanical contacting
to require less contact force during compression.” Id. at 5 (quoting
Gallahger ¶ 85).
The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Wada, Amin,
and Gallahger do not disclose the specular reflectance limitations. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that it would have required only routine skill
in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges in specular reflectance
because the general conditions of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Id.
The Examiner concludes that a POSITA would have been motivated to
modify the coated article specular reflectance as claimed in order to provide
an antireflective film with the lowest possible reflectivity. Id. at 5–6 (citing
Wada ¶ 175 (“When used as the antireflective film, the film preferably has
the lowest possible reflectivity. To be more specific, the average specular
reflectivity in a wavelength range of 450 to 650 nm is preferably up to 3%,
more preferably up to 2% and most preferably up to 1%.”)).
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

6
Appellant argues that the cited art fails to teach pores dispersed
throughout the coating. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant contends that portions of
Wada cited by the Examiner in support of the finding merely state that there
are “many pores in the film,” and thus does not teach the claimed
“dispers[ion] throughout the coating.” Id. at 8. Appellant argues that the
decision in Ex Parte Boden, 2017 WF 2598734 (PTAB June 13, 2017)
supports this position. Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree with the Examiner that “dispersion throughout the coating”
does not require uniform dispersion, thus Wada’s disclosure of “many pores
in the film” reads on the claim limitation. See Ans. 12. Boden is
distinguishable from the instant case. In Boden, the Examiner found that a
combination of oil and water contained “even a small amount of unavoidable
intermixing” of the two substances such that it would read on the claim term
“dispersed throughout.” Boden, 2017 WF 2598734 at *1. The Board
reversed the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner’s interpretation of
“dispersed throughout” was unreasonably broad. Id. Here, the Examiner’s
interpretation is reasonable in light of the specification, which does not
require uniformity. See e.g., Spec. ¶ 76 (“The pores formed within the film
were very small . . . and well-dispersed”).
In addition, as the Examiner finds, Gallahger discloses substantially
uniformly dispersed pores. See Final Act. 5 (citing Gallahger ¶ 51).
Appellant fails to show the Examiner’s finding is erroneous.
Appellant next argues that a POSITA would have had no reason to
substitute Amin’s chemically strengthened glass substrate for that of Wada.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that Amin pertains to cover plates for
mobile electronic devices which require strengthened glass due to frequent
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

7
contact of the cover plate. Id. Appellant contends that Wada, in contrast,
does not indicate that damage resistance is a concern, and nothing in the
record supports the Examiner’s position that it is. Id. at 9–10.
Wada discloses a film useful as an antireflective film on glass
substrates, generically, and optical glass specifically. Wada ¶¶ 177, 196.
Wada discloses using the antireflective film in optical devices such as
microlenses for image sensors, plasma display panels, liquid crystal displays
and organic EL displays. Wada ¶ 174. Any of these products could be
improved by imparting some degree of damage resistance. A POSITA
would have been motivated to use chemically strengthened glass, as taught
by Amin, as the glass substrate of Wada to improve damage resistance to the
glass device. The Examiner’s explanation of the reasons a POSITA would
have had to combine the prior art teachings is no “more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions” of
improved damage resistance. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). Indeed, the background of the Specification identifies that it
was known in the art at the time of the invention to use antireflective
coatings disposed directly on chemically strengthened glass substrates.
Spec. ¶ 5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to use chemically strengthened glass as the glass substrate for the
antireflective coating of Wada.
Finally, Appellant contends there is no reason to substitute
Gallahger’s coating in Wada. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3.
We note that the rejection modifies Wada’s nanoporous Si-containing
polymeric coating with the specific porosity taught by Gallahger, rather than
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

8
directly substitutes Wada’s composition with that of Gallahger. See Final
Act. 4–5; Ans. 13–14.
Wada teaches that its composition may comprise a pore forming
agent, and that including a pore forming agent exhibits a lower refractive
index than conventional film materials, enabling a film having less reduction
of film thickness during film curing to be manufactured. Wada ¶¶ 21, 33,
144–154, 169. Wada is silent as to any particular porosity but discloses
adding a pore forming agent so long as properties, such as the dielectric
constant and mechanical strength, are not impaired. Wada ¶ 129. A
POSITA starting with Wada would reasonably have considered Gallahger’s
disclosure regarding porosity and pore size as desirable for the pores in
Wada’s antireflective coating because Gallahger’s antireflective film has
low refractive index, low dielectric constant, and mechanical strength. See
Gallahger ¶¶ 85 (disclosing a porous material having, inter alia, low
dielectric constant, low refractive index, and improved toughness) and 86
(disclosing Gallahger’s film is suitable for use as an antireflective coating).
Appellant’s argument that the particular recited properties of Gallahger’s
coatings would not be of interest in Wada’s devices (Reply Brief 3–4) in
unpersuasive, as the rejection relies on modification by Wada by Gallahger,
not substitution of Gallahger in place of Wada.
Appellant contends that the properties of the dielectric materials are
not due to the pore size and porosity, but instead due to the closed pore cell
structure with pores that are not interconnected. Appeal Br. 11. While
Gallahger teaches a closed cell structure reduces “interconnectivity that can
lead to degraded electrical performance” (Gallahger ¶ 4), we agree with the
Examiner that Gallahger reasonably identifies to the POSITA that each of
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

9
these advantages, including low refractive index as is consistent with the
teachings of Wada, also come from “having uniformly dispersed voids, a
higher volume of voids . . . and/or smaller void sizes than known dielectric
materials,” and as such these pore properties would be suitable in the film of
Wada. Gallahger ¶ 85.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1. We likewise sustain the rejection
of claims 2–4 and 17–20, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the glass
or glass-ceramic-substrate has an average thickness of less than or equal to
about 2 millimeters.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Amin teaches a coated article comprising a
chemically strengthened glass substrate and a Si-containing coating disposed
on at least a portion of a surface of the glass. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
finds that a POSITA would have been motivated to use Amin’s chemically
strengthened glass substrate in Wada’s article to impart damage resistance
(by the chemical strengthening), noting that discovering optimum or
workable ranges in thickness—such as less than or equal to 2 mm—involves
only routine skill in the art. Id.
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach the required
thickness of the glass substrate. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that the
Examiner fails to explain why a POSITA would have been motivated to
provide a substrate with the average thickness as claimed. Id.
“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already
generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as
the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.” In re
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

10
Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”). Moreover, Amin discloses “a glass article
having a thickness of at least approximately 0.3 mm,” which is within the
claimed “less than or equal to 2 mm” range. See Amin ¶ 10. A prima facie
case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed
composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Harris, 409
F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the coated
article comprises a portion of a touch-sensitive display screen or cover plate
for an electronic device, a non-touch-sensitive component of an electronic
device, a surface of a household appliance, or a surface of a vehicle
component.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Wada fails to teach the additional limitation,6
but finds that Amin teaches a coated article comprising a chemically
strengthened glass substrate and a Si-containing coating disposed on at least

6 While we agree with the Examiner’s rejection combining Amin’s
applications for the glass coated article of Wada, we further disagree with
the Examiner’s finding that Wada does not teach any applications that fall
within the scope of claim 8. The Specification does not define any of these
applications specifically, such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
these applications encompasses at least some of the applications expressly
taught by Wada. For example, Wada expressly teaches thin film transistors
and CMOSs, which fall within the broad category of “non-touch-sensitive
components of an electronic device” because these types of electronic
devices are internal components which are not touched by a user.
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

11
a portion of a surface of the glass, wherein the coated article comprises at
least a portion of a non-touch sensitive component of an electronic device.
Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
a POSITA to use the non-touch sensitive component of an electronic device
of Amin in the coated article of Wada in order to protect the non-touch side
of the glass. Id. at 9; Ans. 15–16.
Appellant reiterates the argument discussed above regarding using the
chemically strengthened substrate of Amin as the glass substrate taught be
Wada, which we addressed in detail above. Appellant’s argument do not
address the Examiner’s specific rejection directed to using the antireflective
coated chemically strengthened glass coated article of claim 1 (taught by
modifying Wada with Amin) as at least a portion of a non-touch sensitive
component of an electronic device, when Amin teaches using antireflective
coated chemically strengthened glass as coated articles for these purposes.
Appellant fails to demonstrate reversible error in the rejection.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1, and further recites
wherein the chemically strengthened glass substrate includes a
chemically strengthened alkali aluminosilicate glass substrate
having a compressive layer having a depth of layer greater than
or equal to 20 micrometers exhibiting a compressive strength of
at least 400 megaPascals both before and after the nanoporous
Si-containing polymeric coating has been disposed thereon, the
coating has a thickness less than about 0.5 micrometers and the
coated article has a haze of less than 0.2%.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Amin teaches a chemically-strengthened
glass substrate with a compressive layer having a depth between
approximately 20–70 µm, which reads on the claimed range, exhibiting a
Appeal 2019-000012
Application 14/371,261

12
compressive strength of at least about 200 MPa, wherein the chemically-
strengthened glass substrate includes a chemically strengthened alkali
aluminosilicate glass substrate. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Amin ¶¶ 10, 66).
Appellant’s argument is the same as that previously made regarding
using the chemically strengthened substrate of Amin as the glass substrate
taught be Wada, which we addressed in detail above. Here, Appellant’s
arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific rejection directed to the
strength and composition of Amin’s chemically-strengthened glass substrate.
See Amin ¶¶ 10, 66. More is required to overcome a prima facie case of
obviousness than “a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We sustain the rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8,
16–20

§ 103(a)
Wada, Amin, and
Gallahger 
1–4, 6, 8,
16–20

Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 8, 16–20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED