Ex Parte Ambrose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13735409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/735,409 01/07/2013 Ronald R. Ambrose 075380A2D1 4246
24959 7590 12/28/2016
PPG Industries, Inc.
IP Law Group
One PPG Place
39th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15272
EXAMINER
VO, HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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 RONALD R. AMBROSE, ANTHONY M. CHASSER, MARY
ANN M. FUHRY, HONGYING ZHOU, GREGORY J. MCCOLLUM, and
IRINA G. SCHWENDEMAN
____________

Appeal 2015–008254
Application 13/735,409
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
WHITNEY N. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–10. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

RELATED APPEALS
On page 10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants indicate the following
related proceedings: Appeal filed in connection with Application S.N.
Appeal 2015–008254
Application 13/735,409

2
13/735,353 on April 8, 2014 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,534,141)1, and Appeal
filed in connection with Application S.N. 13/735,312 on September 19, 2014
(now abandoned).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):

1. An article of manufacture comprising:
a) a first substrate comprising a first flexible
material; and
b) a second substrate comprising a second flexible
material different from the first flexible material,
wherein at least a portion of the first substrate and at least
a portion of the second substrate are coated with a waterborne
coating composition comprising:
i) at least one base neutralized active hydrogen
containing film-forming resin;
ii) a water dispersible carbodiimide crosslinker
capable of reacting with the film-forming resin to form a
crosslinked film wherein the water dispersible
carbodiimide is a water dispersible oligomeric
carbodiimide and/or a water dispersible polymeric
carbodiimide, the water dispersible carbodiimide
crosslinker comprises carbodiimide linkages, urethane
linkages and urea linkages; and
iii) a water dispersible polyisocyanate.

1 On page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates that a terminal
disclaimer has been filed for Application S.N. 13/735,353.
Appeal 2015–008254
Application 13/735,409

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Dai et al. US 2005/0049358 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
(hereafter “Dai”)
Hesselmans et al. US 2006/0106189 A1 May 18, 2006
(hereafter “Hesselmans)
Rearick et al. US 2006/0141228 A1 June 29, 2006
(hereafter “Rearick”)

THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3–10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rearick in view of Hesselmans and Dai. This same
rejection was presented in Appeal 2014–009667 in related Application S.N.
13/735,353 for a claim similar in scope to the claim on appeal here.
ANALYSIS
We reverse the rejection for the reasons presented in the Decision
rendered in Appeal 2014–009667 in related Application S.N. 13/735,353.

DECISION
The rejection is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED