Ex Parte Weiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

14253601 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/253,601 04/15/2014 Evelin Weiss
27623 7590 07/05/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, IOTH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2133.246USU 6503
EXAMINER
LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EVELIN WEISS, BERND HOPPE, MARTIN SPIER,
and DANIELA SEILER
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Evelin Weiss et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1-20 and 33-36. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A volume-colored monolithic glass ceramic cooking plate,
compnsmg:
a first zone in which a volume coloration of the volume-
colored monolithic glass ceramic cooking plate differs from a
volume coloration of a second, adjacent zone so that an
absorption coefficient of the first zone is lower than the
absorption coefficient of the second, adjacent zone and so that
integral light transmission in the visible spectral range is greater
in the first zone than integral light transmission of the second,
adjacent zone,
wherein light scattering in the first zone differs from light
scattering in the second zone by not more than 20 percentage
points.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cantaloupe
Striegler
Pelletier
Siebers '231
Siebers '865
us 4,211,820
US 7,763,832 B2
US 2010/0273631 Al
US 2011/0226231 Al
US 2012/0067865 Al
REJECTIONS
July 8, 1980
July 27, 2010
Oct. 28, 2010
Sept. 22, 2011
Mar. 22, 2012
I. Claims 1, 2, 6-15, 17-19, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Striegler and Siebers
'865. 1
1 The statement of this rejection does not include claim 12. Final Act. 2.
The explanation of the rejection, however, does. Id. Accordingly, we
2
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
II. Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Striegler, Siebers '865, and Cantaloupe.
III. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Striegler, Siebers '865, and Pelletier.
IV. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Striegler, Siebers '865, and Siebers '231.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 6-15, 17-19, and 33-36
Based on Streigler and Siebers '865
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 33-36
Appellants argue claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 33-36 together. See
Appeal Br. 4--12. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims
8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 33-36 stand or fall together with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37( c)(l )(iv).
The Examiner finds that Streigler discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for "glass ceramic [that] is volume-colored." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further finds that "Siebers ['865] discloses that [it is] well-
known to volume color glass ceramic in the cooktop area ([0013], additions
of coloring elements are made to the glass-ceramic cooktop )." Id. Based on
these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to
utilize the volume-coloring of Siebers with the coating colors of Striegler in
order to have the glass-ceramic cooktop appear black when viewed from the
top/above thereby increasing the aest[h]etics of the cooktop." Id.
understand the omission of claim 12 from the statement of the rejection to be
a typographical error.
3
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
Appellants argue that Siebers '865 fails to disclose volume coloration.
See Appeal Br. 6. Rather, Appellants argue, "the '865 publication discloses
a transparent, dyed cooktop comprising a glass ceramic having high quartz
mixed crystals as the predominant crystal phase as well as a method for the
production thereof." Id. at 5---6 (citing Siebers '865 i-f 1 ).
In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that Siebers '865
"discusses the process of coloring the glass (i.e. volume-coloring) with dyes
[0023] that a person skilled in the art would use to adjust transmission
[0025]" of light. Ans. 10. According, to the Examiner "these coloring
elements described read on the language of volume-coloring at least because
they are used to color an inside volume of a glass ceramic cooktop." Id.
The Examiner further explains that "[ t ]here is nothing in the claims that
states that the coloring elements are not dyes and additionally at least
vanadium (claimed in claim 3) is listed as one of the coloring elements in
'865." Id. (citing Siebers '865 i-f 23).
As noted by Appellants, the Specification defines volume coloration
stating:
In the context of the invention, a volume-colored glass or
glass ceramic refers to a material in which the color centers or
coloring ions are distributed throughout the material. That is to
say they are not locally concentrated in form of coloring
crystallites as is the case with pigments. Like a dye, the coloring
ions or color centers are dissolved in the glass or glass ceramic,
while pigments are dispersed in the material. Accordingly,
volume-coloring has an effect on transmission, but not on
scattering, whereas pigments themselves represent scattering
particles. However, it is not intended to exclude that possibly
additional pigments are present.
Spec. i-f 22; see also Appeal Br. 4--5.
4
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
In paragraph 23, Siebers '865 describes coloring glass-ceramic
cooktops using vanadium pentozide (V20 5). Siebers '865 explains that:
Coloring by V 20s represents a very complex process. As
was shown in earlier investigations (DE 19939787 C2), a redox
process is a prerequisite for the conversion of vanadium oxide
into the coloring state. In the crystallizable initial glass, V 20 5 is
still a relatively weak dye and produces a slightly greenish shade
of color. The redox process takes place in the ceramicizing, the
vanadium is reduced and the redox partner is oxidized. The
refining agent functions as the primary redox partner. The
compositions refined by Sb and Sn were shown by Mossbauer
investigations. In the ceramicizing, a part of the Sb3+ or Sn2+ in
the initial glass is converted into the higher oxidation state Sb5+
or Sn4+. It can be assumed that the vanadium in the reduced
oxidation state is incorporated as y 4+ or y 3+ in the seed crystal
and is intensively colored therein by electron charge transfer
reactions. Ti02 can also intensify the coloring by vanadium
oxide as another redox partner. In addition to the type and
quantity of the redox partner in the initial glass, the redox state
that is adjusted in the glass in the melt also has an effect. A lower
oxygen partial pressure p02 (reducing adjusted melt), e.g., due to
high melting temperatures, reinforces the coloring effect of the
vanadium oxide.
Seibers '865 i123.
One skilled in the art reading this portion of Siebers '865 would
understand Siebers '865 to be describing the production of volume-colored
glass or glass ceramic in accordance with the definition of such in the
Specification. Appellants admit as much in the Reply Brief by referring to
Siebers '865 as a reference "that discloses a single volume colored glass
ceramic." Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, Appellants' argument that Seibers
'865 fails to disclose volume-coloration is unconvincing.
Appellants contend that neither Streigler nor Siebers '865 "discloses
or suggests any volume colorization as claimed, much less adjacent regions
5
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
of different volume colorization." Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants
argue that "those skilled in the art would have no reasonable expectation of
being able to provide adjacent volume colorized zones in the manner
claimed." Appeal Br. 6. In support of this argument, Appellants submit
that there is no disclosure or suggestion in any of the cited art,
nor any asserted by the Office Action, of what would lead those
skilled in the art to have a reasonable expectation of being able
to successfully modify the disclosure of a dyed glass ceramic of
the '865 publication in view of the coated glass of the '832
patent.
Id. In particular, Appellants argue that nothing in the prior art suggests
(1) an absorption coefficient of the first zone being lower than
the absorption coefficient of the second, adjacent zone; (2) an
integral light transmission in the visible spectral range being
greater in the first zone than integral light transmission of the
second, adjacent zone; and (3) light scattering in the first zone
differs from light scattering in the second zone by not more than
20 percentage points.
Id. at 7.
Responding to these arguments, the Examiner explains that Siebers
'865 "discusses the addition of coloring elements into a glass-ceramic
cooktop itself that also affects the light transmission." Ans. 9 (citing Siebers
'865 i-f 13). The Examiner notes that Siebers '865
states "Also a certain light transmission is necessary for display
capability, since the usual red light diodes are incorporated
underneath the cooktop. In order to satisfy these requirements,
glass-ceramic cooktops are usually adjusted to light transmission
values of 0.5 to 2.5%. This is achieved by additions of coloring
elements. Glass-ceramic cooktops then appear to be black when
viewed from the top, independent of the coloring element used,
due to the low light transmission, while with transparency, they
are mostly red, red-violet or orange-brown depending on the
coloring elements used."
6
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
Id. at 9--10. The Examiner further explains that Striegler's device "contains
different zones (first zone at 7 and second zone at 4)" and given that
Striegler "discloses the different zones of a cooktop that read on the
coloration materials/transmission claimed ... a person skilled in the art
would have been motivated to utilize the materials of [Striegler] with the
volume-colorization of [Siebers '865]. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner reasons
that such a combination "would result in the glass-ceramic cooktop
appear[ing] black when viewed from the top/above thereby increasing the
aest[h ]etics of the cooktop while still obtaining the desired transmission and
absorption properties." Id.
The Examiner has the better position. Although Appellants allege that
one skilled in the art would have no reasonable expectation that the proposed
combination would result in two zones as claimed, Appellants have not
explained why Siebers '865's teachings of how to create volume-
colorization could not be applied to Striegler's zones. Rather, Appellants
merely conclude that such is the case. See Appeal Br. 5-8; see also Reply
Br. 3. The Examiner has identified where Siebers '865 teaches how volume-
colorization can be achieved and identified where Striegler teaches first and
second zones as claimed. See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 9--11.
Appellants allege that neither reference explicitly discloses or suggest the
entire limitation at issue. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6. A determination of
obviousness, however, does not require the claimed invention to be
expressly suggested by any one or all of the references. See, e.g., In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the rejection relies
upon the combined teachings of both references as discussed supra.
7
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contest the Examiner's statement that
"it is not clear from the claims that the glass ceramic cooking plate is a
single sheet of glass ceramic." Ans. 11; see also Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants
are correct that claim 1 clearly recites "[a] volume-colored monolithic glass
ceramic cooking plate." See Reply Br. 2. 2 This, however, is not indicative
of error in the rejection discussed supra because that rejection does not rest
on the proposition that the claimed plate is not monolithic.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 33-36, which fall therewith.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17
Appellants appear to present separate arguments for the patentability
of each of claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17. See Appeal Br. 8-12; see
also Reply Br. 3. For each of these claims, however, Appellants merely
recite the limitation of the claim and then refer back to the previous
arguments pertaining to claim 1. Such statements do not constitute a
separate argument for patentability of these claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(vii) as requiring "more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements").
2 "With respect to the 'monolithic' element [of] the present application,"
Appellants direct us to paragraph 41 of the Specification. Reply Br. 2.
Paragraph 41 of Appellants' disclosure describes that "[a Jn advantage of this
method over the prior art is the fact that a monolithic component can be
used." Spec. i-f 41 (emphasis added). Claim 1 is directed to a cooking plate-
-an apparatus or machine-not a method.
8
Appeal2017-008326
Application 14/253,601
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 6,
7, 11, 13, 14, and 17 for the reasons discussed supra.
Rejections II-IV: Obviousness of
Claims 3-5 Based on Striegler, Siebers '865, and Cantaloupe
Claim 16 Based on Striegler, Siebers '865, and Pelletier
Claim 20 Based on Striegler, Siebers '865, and Siebers '231
Appellants do not contest these rejections. See generally Appeal Br.;
see also generally Reply Br. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 3-5, 16, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 and 33-36 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9