Ex Parte Blizzard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12930070 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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.
12/930,070 12/24/2010 John D. Blizzard MSH-636 5530
8131 7590 03/18/2016
MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC
784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD
MIDLAND, MI 48640
EXAMINER
POURBOHLOUL, SARIRA CAMILLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2016 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 JOHN D. BLIZZARD
____________________

Appeal 2014-009716
Application 12/930,070
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-009716
Application 12/930,070

2
Appellant appeals1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1–4 and 6–7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method of encapsulating particulate
materials. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method of encapsulating particulate materials, the method
comprising:
a. providing acidified water at least sufficient for hydrolyzing a
predetermined amount of alkoxysilane;
b. dispersing at least one type of particulate material in the
acidified water;
c. slowly adding a predetermined amount of alkoxysilane
having the general formula:
RxSi(ORʹ)4-x
wherein R is selected from the group consisting essentially
of alkyl groups, substituted alkyl groups, aryl groups,
substituted aryl groups, vinyl, allyl, and hydrogen, wherein
the substituents are selected from the group consisting of
fluorine, amino, hydroxy, and combinations thereof, and
wherein Rʹ is selected from hydrogen and alkyl groups of
1 to 4 carbon atoms;
d. allowing sufficient time for the alkoxysilane to hydrolyze
and build a predetermined particle size.
Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wolter et al. (“Wolter”) (US 6,447,907 B1, issued

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, John D.
Blizzard. Brief filed March 10, 2014 (“Br.”), 1.
2 Final Office Action mailed October 9, 2013 (“Final”).
Appeal 2014-009716
Application 12/930,070

3
September 10, 2002) in view of Yoerger et al. (“Yoerger”) (US 5,989,767,
issued November 23, 1999). Final 2.
Appellant relies on the same arguments in support of patentability of
claim 1 in traversing the rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7. See
Br. 2–4. Accordingly, claims 2–4, 6, and 7 stand or fall with claim 1.
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments, and find that a
preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the above rejection for the reasons stated by the
Examiner in the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis.
Appellant’s argument that Wolter and Yoerger fail to teach or suggest
the claimed sequence of steps recited in appealed claim 1, particularly that
the alkoxysilane is added “slowly” to the acidified water, is not persuasive.
Br. 2–3. Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Claim 1
does not recite that the alkoxysilane is added slowly to the acidified water or
require that the steps be performed in the order recited. In addition,
Appellant has not provided any persuasive reasoning or pointed to any
evidence tending to establish that the Examiner erred in finding that Wolter
teaches slowly adding alkoxysilane to a dispersion of particles under acidic
or basic conditions (Ans. 3).
Appellant’s argument that the references “are not combinable to
render the instant process obvious” also lacks persuasive merit. Br. 3.
Appellant simply alleges that the references would not have been combined,
but provides no specific arguments or evidence establishing that the
references are not combinable in the manner set forth by the Examiner.
See id.
Appeal 2014-009716
Application 12/930,070

4
Appellant’s argument that Wolter teaches a solvent and Yoerger
teaches a catalyst not required by claim 1 is not convincing. Br. 4. As the
Examiner properly determines, claim 1 uses the open-ended transitional
phrase “comprising” which does not exclude any additional steps from the
recited process. Ans. 6. Therefore, Wolter’s use of a solvent and Yoerger’s
use of a catalyst is not excluded from claim 1.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 7.

AFFIRMED