Ex Parte 7674481 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2013

95001418 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

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.
95/001,418 08/13/2010 7674481 038184.0034-US08 1955
26853 7590 01/28/2013
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2401
EXAMINER
HUANG, EVELYN MEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2013 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
____________

ARCH WOOD PROTECTION, INC., ARCH CHEMICALS, INC., and ARCH
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Requester1

v.

OSMOSE, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before LORA M. GREEN, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner Osmose, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-29.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a).

1 Requester did not participate in this appeal. See Examiner’s Answer (mailed
March 1, 2012) (hereinafter “Ans.”) at 2.

2 See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief 1 (filed November 21, 2011) (hereinafter “PO
App. Br.”); Ans. 2.
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

2

We heard oral arguments from Patent Owner on December 3, 2012, a
written transcript of which will be entered into the electronic record in due course.
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United States Patent 7,674,481 B2 (hereinafter the ‘“481 Patent”), which is
the subject of the current inter partes reexamination, issued to Robert M. Leach, et
al. on March 9, 2010.
The ‘481 Patent was involved in a litigation styled Osmose Inc. v. Arch
Chemicals, Inc., Arch Wood Protection, Inc., Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc.,
Cox Industries, Inc., Rocky Top Building Products, Inc. and Madison Wood
Preservers, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia Norfolk Division (C.A. No. 2:1O-cv-108)(JBF), which was dismissed
with prejudice on March 17, 2011 (PO App. Br. 1).
As previously mentioned, Third-Party Requesters Arch Wood Protection,
Inc., Arch Chemicals, Inc., and Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc.3 (hereinafter
collectively referred to as “Requester”) did not file a Respondent Brief in this
appeal.
The ‘481 Patent relates to a wood preservative composition comprising
micronized particles (Col. 1, ll. 11-13). Claim 1, illustrative of the appealed
subject matter, reads as follows (with indentations added for clarity):4

3 See Request for Inter Partes Reexamination (filed August 13, 2010) at 2; Ans. 2.
4 The claims of the ‘481 Patent were not amended during reexamination.

Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

3

1. A method for preserving a wood product comprising the step
of contacting the wood product with a wood preservative composition
comprising:
(a) a dispersion in water of micronized particles of basic copper
carbonate, copper carbonate or copper hydroxide between 0.001 and
25 microns and
(b) one or more organic biocides selected from the group
consisting of tebuconazole, alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride,
dimethyldidecylammonium chloride, dimethyldidecylammonium
carbonate, and dimethyldidecylammonium bicarbonate,
wherein the micronized particles of the basic copper carbonate,
copper carbonate or copper hydroxide are distributed within the wood
product and render the wood product resistant to fungal decay.
(PO App. Br., Claims App’x.)
Patent Owner contests the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tadatoshi5 in view of Heuer6 (Ground 5,
RAN 11-13; Ans. 5-8);

5 JP 2000-141316, published May 23, 2000, listing Tadatoshi Kurozumi as the sole
inventor. There are two English language translations in the record. The first
translation in the record is the PTO-ordered translation (PTO 09-7722) provided in
September 2009 by Schreiber Translations, Inc. (hereinafter “PTO translation”).
The second translation in the record is one provided by the Requester. Though the
Request indicates that the translation is from TransPerfect Translations (Request
10, n. 3), the document itself describes no origin (hereinafter “Requester’s
translation”).

6 US 5,874,025, issued February 23, 1999, to Lutz Heuer, et al.
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

4

II. Claims 2, 19, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tadatoshi in view of Heuer and further in view of
Walker7 (Ground 6, RAN 13-14; Ans. 8);
III. Claims 15-19, 22-24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tadatoshi in view of Heuer and further in
view of Ordas8 (Ground 7, RAN 15; Ans. 9);
IV. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Heuer in view of Ploss9 (Ground 8, RAN
19-21; Ans. 9-11);
V. Claims 2, 19, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heuer in view of Ploss and further in view of
Walker (Ground 9, RAN 21-22; Ans. 11-12);
VI. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Heuer in view of Ploss and further in view
of Ordas (Ground 10, RAN 22-23; Ans. 12);
VII. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Heuer in view of Spencer10 (Ground 11,
RAN 27-29; Ans. 12-14);

7 US 6,485,790 B2, issued November 26, 2002 to Leigh E. Walker et al.

8 US 3,535,423, issued October 20, 1970 to Eugene P. Ordas.

9 US 2003/0077219 A1, published April 24, 2003, in the name of Hartmut Ploss, et
al.

10 GB 1 491 330, published November 9, 1977, listing sole inventor Raymond
Spencer.
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

5

VIII. Claims 2, 19, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heuer in view of Spencer and further in view of
Walker (Ground 12, RAN 29-30; Ans. 14-15);
IX. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Heuer in view of Spencer and further in
view of Ordas (Ground 13, RAN 30-31; Ans. 15-16);
X. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Williams11 in view of Ploss (Ground 14,
RAN 33-35; Ans. 16-17);
XI. Claims 2, 19, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams in view of Ploss and further in view of
Walker (Ground 15, RAN 35-36; Ans. 18); and
XII. Claims 1, 3-18, 20-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Ploss and further in
view of Ordas (Ground 16, RAN 37; Ans. 18-19).

The Patent Owner relies on the following additional evidence:
Declaration of John N.R. Ruddick executed May 26, 2011 (Ex. B.10, App.
Br.) (hereinafter “Ruddick Decl.”).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 19-22 include a limitation that the
recited micronized particles “are distributed within the wood product.”

11 US 5,527,384, issued June 18, 1996, to Gareth Williams, et al.
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

6

The Examiner interprets the phrase “distributed within the wood product” to
mean distributed “more than inside the wood just under the surface, but penetration
into the interior of the wood” (RAN 6; Ans. 21). Patent Owner contends that the
phrase “cannot refer to fixing of a metallic compound only to the surface of wood”
(PO App. Br. 9). Patent Owner notes that the Examiner’s interpretation uses the
phrase “interior of the wood,” which is the same word at issue in the translation of
Tadatoshi (id.).
The Examiner’s interpretation and the Patent Owner’s interpretation do not
appear to be in conflict to the extent that the micronized particles must penetrate
further into the wood than would constitute just a surface treatment of the wood or
just under the surface of the wood.

TADATOSHI IN VIEW OF HEUER
The Rejection
The Examiner found that Tadatoshi discloses a method of treating wood by
coating or immersing wood in a composition including a copper hydroxide colloid
formulation in water, in which the copper hydroxide has a particle size range
encompassed by the claimed particle size range (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner found
that Tadatoshi teaches that the composition may be applied in a first embodiment
to only the surface of the wood including a “thin region inside the surface” (Ans.
6). The Examiner also found that paragraph [0023] of Tadatoshi teaches a second
embodiment in which the air and water contained in the wood is replaced with the
colloid metal compound by increasing the temperature of the wood “to facilitate
the permeation of the colloidal metal compound into the interior of the wood”
(Ans. 6). The Examiner finds this a teaching that the micronized copper hydroxide
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

7

particles are “distributed within the wood product” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 21-
23).
The Examiner relies on Heuer, a method of applying a copper metal based
solution to wood, to further teach the use of organic biocides as recited in claim 1
as a preservative against wood-destroying fungi and insects (Ans. 6).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would include the organic biocides taught by Heuer in the copper
hydroxide containing wood treatment composition of Tadatoshi to obtain a more
effective wood treating composition against microbes (id.).
Issues
The dispositive issue for this rejection is:
Does Tadatoshi disclose a wood preservative composition of micronized
copper hydroxide particles in water that is capable of distributing the copper
hydroxide micronized particles “within the wood product” as recited in claim 1?
Findings of Fact
FF1. Paragraph 10 of the PTO’s translation of Tadatoshi reads as follows:
When such a colloid solution is used, although it was thought that the
colloidal metallic compound would be able to soak into the wood,
surprisingly, the colloidal metallic compound only fixes to the surface
of the wood (herein, 'surface' includes the thin inner surface) with
virtually no penetration into the inner wood. Despite this, functions
such as enhanced flame retardance, insect proofing, rot proofing, and
dimensional stability were conferred to the wood. As a result at this
discovery, this invention was completed.
The same paragraph of the Requester’s translation does not appear to
conflict as it states:
It could be thought that colloidal metal compounds might permeate
into wood if this type of colloidal solution were used. However, it was
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

8

unexpectedly discovered that the colloidal metal compounds are
affixed to only the surface of the wood (referring, in the present
invention, to include a thin region inside the surface), with almost no
permeation into the wood interior. However, the present invention
was perfected upon discovering that, in spite of this, functionality in
regard to improved flame retardance, insect resistance, decay
resistance, and dimensional stability can still be provided.
FF2. Paragraph 22 of Tadatoshi is substantially similar in the two translations.
Paragraph 22 describes that fixing the colloidal metal oxide to the surface of the
wood occurs quickly, by contacting the solution to the wood surface by coating, or
preferably immersion, and describes that adding energy during immersion provides
uniform fixing of the colloidal metal compound to the wood.
FF3. The interpretation of paragraph 23 of Tadatoshi is at issue in this case (PO
App. Br. 10).
FF4. Paragraph 23 of the PTO’s translation of Tadatoshi reads as follows
(underlining added for emphasis):
To increase the amount of metallic compound fixed to the
wood, it is necessary to efficiently replace the wood’s air bubbles,
moisture, and so forth with the colloidal metallic compound. To
achieve this, it is desirable to impart energy during fixation. Suitable
means for imparting energy include heating to supply physical energy
. . . . It is also favorable to raise the temperature of the wood in
advance to that of the colloid solution, to coat or immerse the wood in
advance with a surfactant or the like in order to facilitate penetration
of the colloidal metallic compound into the wood, or to add the
surfactant to the colloid solution in advance. These methods are
effective in cases where it is necessary to increase the thickness of
metallic compound fixed to the surface.
Paragraph 23 of Requester’s translation of Tadatoshi reads as follows (underlining
added for emphasis):
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

9

In order to increase the fixing amount of metal compound to the
wood, it is necessary to efficiently replace the air and water contained
in the wood with colloidal metal compound. To this end, it is desirable
to add energy during fixing. Means for adding energy include a
thermal irradiation system . . . . In addition, the temperature of the
wood may be increased in advance to approximately the temperature
of the colloid solution, or a surfactant or the like may be applied,
permeated into the wood, or added to the colloid solution in advance
in order to facilitate permeation of the colloidal metal compound into
the interior of the wood. This is advantageous when it is necessary to
increase the thickness over which the material is affixed to the surface
region.
Analysis
Patent Owner contends that paragraph 23 of Tadatoshi was misinterpreted as
teaching a penetration of the metallic compound further into the wood than would
constitute just a surface treatment of the wood or just under the surface of the wood
(App. Br. 15). Patent Owner argues that such an interpretation fails to consider
the reference as a whole, namely the express teaching in paragraph 10 of no
penetration into the wood (id. 17).
In light of the teachings of the remaining portions of both versions of the
Tadatoshi reference, we find that the reference in paragraph 23 to “permeation of
the metal compound in to the wood” (or even “into the interior of the wood”)
cannot be interpreted as permeation to an extent more than what would still be
considered a surface treatment and a treatment which would not permeate more
than just under the surface of the wood. In particular, we find the discussion in
paragraph 10 to indicate that the invention as a whole is limited to the surface
treatment of the wood. Paragraph 10 is entitled “Embodiments of the Invention.”
Thus, the statements in paragraph 23 referring permeation into the wood’s interior
would be understood by the skilled artisan to be restricted to the thin region inside
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

10

the surface as described in paragraph 10, and not into the interior of the wood
beyond the thin surface region. Accordingly, we cannot agree with the Examiner
that paragraph 23 constitutes a separate embodiment that was not contemplated in
the “Embodiments of the Invention.” Moreover, the preceding paragraph 22
teaches using additional energy for more uniform fixing of the compound “to the
wood.” We find no reason that the sources of additional energy described in the
next paragraph do not refer to the same use of additional energy described in
paragraph 22, which says nothing about the additional energy providing a deeper
penetration than the surface penetration discussed, for example, in paragraph 10.
Thus, we agree with the Patent Owner that Tadatoshi does not teach or suggest the
micronized particles “distributed within the wood product” as that term would be
reasonably construed.
The Examiner’s rejection does not rely on the teachings of Heuer as
overcoming this deficiency.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that independent claims 1, 8,
15, and 19-22 are obvious over Tadatoshi in view of Heuer. The Examiner’s
rejections of the dependent claims rely on Tadatoshi and Heuer in the same manner
and thus fail for the same reason.
HEUER IN VIEW OF PLOSS
The Rejection
The Examiner found that Heuer teaches using an aqueous solution of copper
hydroxide or copper carbonate for the treatment of wood, in which the copper ions
penetrate well into wood and wood-based materials (Ans. 9). The Examiner found
that Heuer does not teach micronized particles in a dispersion of water (id. at 10).
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

11

The Examiner found that Ploss teaches a wood treatment comprising copper
hydroxide with the claimed particles size that “can penetrate more easily and more
deeply into the wood layers under treatment due to their quasi atomic size” (id. at
10). The Examiner found that Ploss teaches a micro-emulsion that is a starting
product that can be dried under vacuum condition and reconstituted in water (id.
27-28).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have modified the wood preservative of Heuer by dispersing
the particular copper hydroxide particles of Ploss in water (id.).
Issues
The dispositive issue for this rejection is:
Would a method in which micronized particles are distributed within the
wood product by contacting the wood product with a dispersion of such particles in
water have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of
Heuer and Ploss?
Findings of Fact
FF5. Heuer teaches a method for treating wood including a copper hydroxide or
copper carbonate dissolved as a clear solution (Heuer, col. 2, ll. 9-10 and 37-42).
FF6. Ploss teaches combining a first CuCl2 and block polymer emulsion in one of
four organic solvents and a second emulsion of NaOH in water and a block
polymer in the organic solvent of the first emulsion under ultrasound or high-
pressure homogenization (Ploss, ¶ [0031]-[0035], ¶ [0017]).
FF7. This process produces a monodisperse, stable, liquid product comprising
particles sizes of less than 50 nm (Ploss, ¶¶ [0036]-[0037], [0017]).
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

12

FF7. Ploss teaches an improvement in wood permeation, to a depth of more than
10 mm, when immersed in the “micro-emulsion prepared pursuant to the
invention” over “a conventional copper hydroxide suspension” that was fixated to
the wood only superficially (Ploss, ¶ [0040]).
FF8. Ploss teaches a formulation using the copper compounds “in the familiar
fashion based on the application purpose” (Ploss, ¶ [0029]).
FF9. Ploss teaches using the micro-emulsion as a liquid end product or preparing
a dry formulation under vacuum conditions (Ploss, ¶ [0036]).
Analysis
Patent Owner contends that neither Heuer nor Ploss discloses a dispersion of
micronized particles in water (PO App. Br. 20-25). We agree with the Patent
Owner that the Examiner has not demonstrated that either Heuer or Ploss would
have suggested that the skilled artisan form a dispersion of micronized particles in
water.
Heuer suggests a copper solution, not a suspension, in water. Ploss on the
other hand discloses only a dry product or an organic solvent-based emulsion. The
Examiner has not explained a reason why the skilled artisan would have even
attempted to prepare a suspension of the small-sized particles of Ploss in water.
The Examiner has not explained why replacing Heuer’s solubilized copper
compound with Ploss’ particular micronized copper compound would necessarily
form a suspension in water, particularly considering that Ploss’s dried compound
further includes block polymers (Ans. 29; see Ruddick Dec. ¶ 34 (stating that it is
speculation to predict how the micro-emulsion of Ploss would behave in the
aqueous system of Heuer)). Even though Ploss describes a benefit to permeation
with a smaller particle size over conventional copper hydroxide suspensions, we
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

13

agree with Patent Owner that Ploss’s teaching of an organic-solvent based
suspension does not correlate to the teachings of Heuer where the copper is
solubilized and not permeated into the wood as micronized particles, without the
benefit of hindsight. In other words, we are not persuaded that, without hindsight,
the skilled artisan would have considered using micronized particles suspended in
water, rather than the organic solvents described by Ploss, since there is no
evidence to suggest that a suspension in water is either equivalent or an
improvement to Heuer’s solution.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that independent claims 1, 8,
15, and 19-22 are obvious over Heuer in view of Ploss. The Examiner’s rejections
of the dependent claims rely on Heuer in view of Ploss in the same manner and
thus fail for the same reason.
WILLIAMS IN VIEW OF PLOSS
The Rejection
Both the Examiner and Patent Owner indicate that the reasons for combining
Williams and Ploss are the same as the reasons for combining Heuer and Ploss, in
that “the teachings of Williams and Heuer are similar” (Ans. 37; RAN 34; PO App.
Br. 29-30).
Considering that Williams teaches copper metal ions in an aqueous solution
(Williams, col. 2, ll. 32-39), we determine that the Examiner has not demonstrated
that either Williams or Ploss would have suggested that the skilled artisan form a
dispersion of micronized particles in water for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to Heuer and Ploss.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that independent claims 1, 8,
15, and 19-22 are obvious over Williams in view of Ploss. The Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

14

rejections of the dependent claims rely on Williams in view of Ploss in the same
manner and thus fail for the same reason.
HEUER IN VIEW OF SPENCER
The Rejection
The Examiner found that Heuer teaches using an aqueous solution of copper
hydroxide or copper carbonate for the treatment of wood in which the copper ions
penetrate wood and wood-based materials well (Ans. 13). The Examiner found
that Heuer does not teach micronized particles in a dispersion of water (id.).
The Examiner found that Spencer teaches a composition comprising water
and copper-8-hydroxyquinolate (an unclaimed copper compound) having the
claimed particle size (id.).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify
the wood preservative of Heuer by dispersing in water particulate copper
hydroxide or basic copper carbonate with a size less than 1 micron as taught by
Spencer to obtain a more effective wood treating composition (id.).
The Examiner explains that because Spencer describes that the low particle
size facilitates penetration into the wood, the skilled artisan would desire this
feature for the copper compounds of Heuer as an alternative to using solubilizing
agents (id. at 33).
Findings of Fact
FF9. Heuer teaches a method for treating wood including a copper hydroxide or
copper carbonate dissolved as a clear solution (Heuer, col. 2, ll. 9-10 and 37-42).
FF10. Spencer teaches a preparation of copper-8-hydroxyquinolate mixed with
water whose copper constituent is in particulate form having a particulate size less
than one micron (Spencer 1:36-40).
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

15

FF11. Spencer teaches that the resulting fungicide “adhered tenaciously to the
wood” when immersed or “may be sprayed on to the whole surface of the elm
wood” (Spencer 2:29-33).
FF12. Spencer teaches that “The low particle size of the copper constituent in the
active agent facilitates penetration of the wood which is particularly important for
hardwoods such as elm. As a result adhesion of the fungicide to the wood is
improved” (Spencer 3:42-56).
FF13. Spencer teaches that the fungicide prevents or retards mould (mold) growth
in wood (Spencer 1:25-28).
Analysis
Patent Owner contends that neither Heuer nor Spencer teach a dispersion in
water of micronized particles of basic copper carbonate, copper carbonate or
copper hydroxide as recited in the claims (PO App. Br. 27). Patent Owner further
argues that Spencer is equivalent to Tadatoshi in that it is directed only to a surface
treatment of micronized particles, such that the copper particles are not distributed
within the wood product (PO App. Br. 27; PO Reb. Br. 11).
The Examiner has not demonstrated that either Heuer or Spencer would have
suggested that the skilled artisan form a dispersion of the claimed micronized
particles in water. The evidence does not suggest using micronized particles of the
claimed compounds at all. Although Spencer teaches that copper-8-
hydroxyquinolate was commercially available in a micronized size and dispersible
in water, it is silent as to the applicability of its teachings to other copper
compounds, such as those taught by Heuer. The Examiner has presented no
evidence that micronized copper hydroxide or copper carbonate was likewise
commercially available or in a form that provided for aqueous suspension by
Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

16

mixing with water, as taught by Spencer. Likewise, Heuer does not suggest
micronizing and/or suspending copper hydroxide or copper carbonate since it relies
on solubilization of these copper compounds.
Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Spencer does not describe
micronized particles in a water suspension “dispersed within the wood product.”
Patent Owner has provided persuasive evidence that Spencer’s disclosure of
“penetration of the wood” is for the purpose of improved adhesion to the surface of
the wood and does not describe permeation deeper into the wood than just under
the surface (see Spencer 3:24-46; Reddick Decl. ¶ 41). Thus, even if the skilled
artisan would use the compounds of Heuer as a suspension in water, the
Examiner’s reasoning that such a suspension would cause the micronized particles
to be distributed within the wood product as claimed is based on teaching of
Spencer of only surface penetration of micronized particles into a wood product,
which is insufficient to meet the requirements of the claim. The Examiner has
provided no further reasoning as to why the micronized particles would penetrate
deeper than taught by Spencer.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that independent claims 1, 8,
15, and 19-22 are obvious over Heuer in view of Spencer. The Examiner’s
rejections of the dependent claims rely on Heuer in view of Spencer in the same
manner and thus fail for the same reason.
DECISION
In sum, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejection on appeal.

REVERSED

Appeal 2012-010813
Reexamination Control 95/001,418
Patent 7,674,481 B2

17

PATENT OWNER:
Covington & Burling. LLP
Attn: Patent Docketing
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
John S. Pratt, ESQ.
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309