Ex Parte Angadjivand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13180899 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/180,899 07 /12/2011
32692 7590 04/04/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seyed A. Angadjivand
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.
62289US004 3311
EXAMINER
MUSSER, BARBARA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEYED A. ANGADJIV AND, JAMES E. SPRINGETT,
JOHN M. BRANDNER, MARVIN E. JONES, ANDREW R. FOX,
MICHAEL R. BERRIGAN, and JOHN D. STELTER
Appeal2013---011059
Application 13/180,899
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JAMES C.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2013-011059
Application 13/180,899
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. A process for making a flat-fold personal respirator, which
process compnses:
a.) obtaining a monocomponent monolayer nonwoven web
that contains electrically charged, intermingled continuous
monocomponent polymeric fibers of the same polymeric
composition, the web having sufficient basis weight or inter-
fiber bonding so as to exhibit a Gurley Stiffness greater
than 200 mg;
b.) forming at least one line of demarcation in the charged web to
provide at least one panel that is defined at least in part by the
line of demarcation; and
c.) adapting the web to provide a mask body that exhibits less
than 20 mm H20 pressure drop and is capable of being folded
to a substantially flat-folded configuration and unfolded to a
convex open configuration.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Mayhew US 3,613,678 Oct. 19, 1971
Midkiff et al. US 5,709,735 Jan. 20, 1998
Chen et al. US 6,394,090 B 1 May 28, 2002
Richard Lieberman and Constantine Stewart, "Propylene Polymers",
Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Volume 11, 287-358 (hereafter "Lieberman and Stewart").
2
Appeal2013-011059
Application 13/180,899
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1--4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen in view of Mayhew, and Midkiff.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lieberman
and Stewart.
ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejections for the reasons provided by the Examiner in
the record, and add the following for emphasis. We select claim 1 as
representative based upon Appellants' presented arguments. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that applying the teachings of Midkiff to
Chen according to the Examiner's rejection (Ans. 3--4) is in error for the
reasons set forth on pages 4--8 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 2--4 of the
Reply Brief. Therein, Appellants explain that Chen is directed to a multi-
layer mask whereby stiffness is achieved by use of a separate stiffening layer
128 in combination with a filter layer 126. Chen, Figure 3, col. 10, 11. 1-29.
Appellants further explain that, on the other hand, Midkiff is directed to a
single layer filter material of conjugate fibers. Use of the conjugate fibers
provides stiffness for the single layer filter. Appeal Br. 7-8. Reply Br. 1--4.
Midkiff, Abstract, col. 1, 11. 3 8--41.
Appellants submit that because Midkiff is directed to forming a single
layer web using conjugate fibers, modifying Chen according to Midkiff as
proposed by the Examiner does not obtain the claimed subject matter of
3
Appeal2013-011059
Application 13/180,899
"obtaining a monocomponent monolayer nonwoven web that contains
electrically charged, intermingled continuous monocomponent polymeric
fibers of the same polymeric composition", which web has "sufficient basis
weight or inter-fiber bonding so as to exhibit a Gurley Stiffness greater than
200 mg" as recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 8-9.
We are not persuaded by such argument. First, on page 7 of the
Appeal Brief, Appellants refer to disclosure in Midkiff. Therein, Midkiff
teaches that the polymers are usually different from each other, though
"conjugate fibers may be monocomponent fibers" and can be electrically
charged as required by Chen Midkiff, col. 3, 11. 33-37 and col. 8, 11. 10-35.
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants that Midkiff involves only
conjugate fibers having at least two different polymer components. Also,
Midkiff teaches that "[i]n many applications, filtration materials are required
which have structural integrity by themselves" and "highly stiffness filter
medium polymer fiber [ nonwoven] web", according to l'viidkiff, may be part
of a multilayer laminate. Midkiff, col. 1, 11. 38--42 and col. 6, 11. 42--48.
Appellants' claim 1 is not limited to a process of making a single layer of a
nonwoven web in view of the "comprises" language in the claim. Hence, we
agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Midkiff are applicable in the
process of Chen and that there is ample suggestion to arrive at the claimed
process.
Appellants also argue that the personal respirator recited in claim 1 is
structurally different from that taught or suggested by the applied art.
Appeal Br. 5. However, layer 128 of Chen is optional. Employing the
process taught by Midkiff into the process of Chen would result in the
structure recited in claim 1. Also, we again note that Appellants' claim 1 is
4
Appeal2013-011059
Application 13/180,899
not limited to a process of making a single layer of a nonwoven web in view
of the "comprises" language in the claim.
Appellants also argue that the particularly claimed pressure drop is not
suggested by the combination. Appeal Br. 8-9. Reply Br. 3--4. However,
we agree with the Examiner's stated positon as set forth on pages 7 and 8 of
the Answer, and are unpersuaded by such argument. "Discovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill
of the art.". In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5