Ex Parte Ahluwalia

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 2009

11087283 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOUNGER AHLUWALIA
____________

Appeal 2009-009176
Application 11/087,283
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 15, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2009-009176
Application 11/087,283

1. A composite material comprising:

(a) a substrate selected for the group consisting of cotton,
rayon, lyocell and blends thereof; and

(b) a coating consisting essentially of water, ammonium
polyphosphate, binder material, cross-linking material,
thickener material and a catalyst;

wherein said binder material bonds the ammonium polyphosphate,
cross-linking material, thickener material and catalyst together and to
the substrate such that the substrate is coated with said coating.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Borsellino 3,248,259 Apr. 26, 1966
McIntosh 4,935,232 Jun. 19, 1990
Piana 2004/0121114 A1 Jun. 24, 2004

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a composite material
comprising a fire-retardant coating composition on a fabric substrate, such as
cotton, rayon and lyocell. The instant claims on appeal are closely related to
Appellant’s co-pending application, US Serial No. 11/087,282, which is also
before us on appeal (Appeal No. 2009-009084). The only distinction
between appealed claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 on appeal in
the co-pending application is that instant claim 1 does not recite aluminum
trihydrate, prefabricated microcells, a surfactant and surfactant-generated
microcells in the coating composition. Both claims recite water, ammonium
polyphosphate, binder material, cross-linking material, thickener material
and a catalyst in the coating composition.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
2
Appeal 2009-009176
Application 11/087,283

(a) claims 1-5, 8, and 10-12 over Piana,
(b) claims 6 and 9 over Piana in view of McIntosh,
(c) and claim 7 over Piana in view of Borsellino.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Piana.
Appellant does not present a separate, substantive argument for any
particular claim on appeal. Appellant’s statement setting forth the
recitations of the dependent claims is not tantamount to a separate,
substantive argument (see App. Br. para. bridging 10-11).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments set forth
in the Principal and Reply Briefs on appeal. However, we are in complete
agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103
in view of the applied prior art.
Appellant’s arguments are essentially the same as those set forth in
the co-pending application noted above. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection for essentially the reasons set forth in our Opinion in
the co-pending application, and will not burden the record with further
comment. As in the co-pending application, Appellant sets forth no
argument based upon objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as
unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is 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) (2008).
3
Appeal 2009-009176
Application 11/087,283

AFFIRMED

ssl

FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO
1290 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10104-3800
4