Ex Parte Botros

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2011

12006370 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MAGED G. BOTROS
__________

Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370
Technology Center 1700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and STEPHEN
WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
adhesive and a multi-layer film or sheet. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-17 are on appeal (App. Br. 2). The claims subject to each
rejection have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall
together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 1 and 11 are representative
and read as follows:
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

2
1. An adhesive composition comprising:
(a) 40 to 70 percent, based on the total weight of the composition,
ethylene-C4-8 α-olefin copolymer having a density from 0.910 to
0.925 g/cm
3
;
(b) 2.5 to 25 percent, based on the total weight of the composition,
polyethylene resin grafted with an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid
or acid derivative; and
(c) 20 to 50 percent, based on the total weight of the composition,
styrene-isoprene-styrene and styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymers
present at a weight ratio from 5:1 to 1:5.
11. A multi-layer film or sheet comprising a styrene polymer layer
and a tie-layer adhesively bonded thereto, said tie-layer adhesive comprising
40 to 70 percent, based on the total weight of the tie-layer composition,
ethylene-C4-8 α-olefin copolymer base resin having a density from 0.910 to
0.925 g/cm
3
; 2.5 to 25 percent, based on the total weight of the tie-layer
composition, polyethylene resin grafted with an ethylenically unsaturated
carboxylic acid or acid derivative; and 20 to 50 percent, based on the total
weight of the tie-layer composition, styrene-isoprene-styrene and styrene-
butadiene-styrene triblock copolymers present at a weight ratio from 5:1 to
1:5.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Lee (US 6,184,298 B1, Feb. 6, 2001) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 5,290,842,
Mar. 1, 1994) (Ans. 3).
Claims 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Lee in view of Sasaki and Hattori et al. (US 5,591,792, Jan. 7, 1997)
(Ans. 7).
I
The Examiner finds:
Lee discloses an adhesive composition comprising 58% of (a) a
conventional LLDPE polyethylene-butene . . . , 12% of (b) a
grafted conventional polyethylene with 0.9% grafted maleic
anhydride . . . , and 30% of (c) a styrene-ethylene-butylene-
styrene triblock copolymer. . . . Lee also discloses a general
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

3
adhesive composition of 55 to 85% of a polyethylene
polymer[,] which is a combination of 1-99% a conventional
LLDPE polyethylene-butene . . . and 1-100% . . . grafted
conventional polyethylene[,] and 15-45% of an unmodified
styrene-based elastomer.
(Ans. 4.) The Examiner acknowledges that “Lee is silent on utilizing two
triblock copolymers of styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) and styrene-
butadiene-styrene (SBS) at a weight ratio from 5:1 to 1:5” (id. at 5).
However, the Examiner finds that “Lee inherently discloses the use of both
SBS and SIS triblock elastomers via disclosing that any Kraton D copolymer
may be used (for example, Kraton D can be either SIS or SBS as noted in the
Kraton Brochure) in the adhesive composition” (id.).
The Examiner relies on Sasaki for disclosing “adhesive compositions
comprising two elastomers comprising both styrene butadiene (SB) block
copolymers and styrene isoprene (SI) block copolymers” (id.). The
Examiner finds that the “styrene butadiene block copolymers can be SBS
(styrene-butadiene-styrene) triblock copolymers and styrene isoprene block
copolymers can be SIS (styrene-isoprene-styrene) triblock copolymers” (id.).
The Examiner also finds that the “adhesive composition with a mixture of
both SB block copolymers (e.g. SBS) and SI block copolymers (e.g. SIS)
yield surprisingly improved adhesive properties” (id.). In addition, the
Examiner finds that the “mixture of the two elastomers is present in amounts
of about 1.3:1” (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to utilize a 1.3 mixture of SBS to SIS as taught by Sasaki et al. in
the composition of Lee because one would want to utilize the elastomer
mixture for improving the adhesive properties” (id.).
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

4
Issue
Does the preponderance of evidence support the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to include styrene-isoprene-
styrene and styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymers at a weight ratio
from 5:1 to 1:5 in Lee’s adhesive composition?
Findings of Fact
1. Lee discloses an adhesive composition comprising an
unmodified polyethylene, a polyethylene modified with an unsaturated
carboxylic acid or its derivative, and a styrene-based elastomer, the styrene-
based elastomer being present in an amount of 10 to 45 wt% (Lee, Abstract
& col. 3, ll. 22-32).
2. Lee also discloses that the “styrene elastomer is a monovinyl
aromatic hydrocarbon/olefin block copolymer. . . . Styrene and alpha-methyl
styrene are preferably used as monovinyl aromatic hydrocarbons. . . . The
olefin may be selected from conjugated di-olefins, such as butadiene and
isoprene, and alpha-olefins, such as ethylene, propylene and 1-butene.” (Id.
at col. 6, ll. 23-30.)
3. In addition, Lee discloses that these “styrene-based elastomers
are commercially available under the trade names KRAYTON® T, D and 0”
(id. at col. 6, ll. 65-66), the KRAYTON® D polymers including styrene-
butadiene-styrene and styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymers (Ans. 5;
Sasaki, col. 7, ll. 42-45).
4. Sasaki discloses “an elastomer or rubber-based pressure-
sensitive adhesive composition . . . providing excellent adhesive properties
at both ambient and reduced temperatures,” which “can be obtained by
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

5
combining in admixture two or more immiscible elastomers which when
combined in proportion provide at least two glass transition temperatures
and by the addition of one or more additives which serve to tackify the
mixture” (Sasaki, col. 2, l. 56, to col. 3, l. 1).
5. In particular, Sasaki discloses “an admixture of a first natural or
synthetic elastomer providing a first polymerized diene, preferably
polybutadiene, and exhibiting a first glass transition temperature and a
second natural or synthetic elastomer providing a second polymerized diene
component, preferably polyisoprene, and having a second glass transition
temperature higher than the first” (id. at col. 3, ll. 12-19).
6. In addition, Sasaki discloses that “preferred compositions are
those in which the ratio of the polybutadiene-based elastomer to the
polyisoprene-based elastomer is about 1.3:1” (id. at col. 3, ll. 65-66).
7. Sasaki also discloses that in formulating the pressure-sensitive
adhesives:
Useful [elastomeric polymers] are AB, ABA and (AB)x block
copolymers . . . wherein A is a block comprising at least one
monoalkenyl arene, preferably styrene, . . . and B is an
elastomeric conjugated diene block, preferably a polybutadiene
or a polyisoprene block. Preferably at least one is based on
polybutadiene blocks and one other is based on polyisoprene
blocks. . . . Among the useful elastomeric polymers there may
be mentioned . . . styrene-butadiene (SB) block copolymers, . . .
styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) block copolymers, styrene-
isoprene (SI) block copolymers, styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS)
block copolymers, . . . and the like.
(Id. at col. 7, ll. 15-36.)
8. In addition, Sasaki discloses that “[c]ommercial elastomeric
polymers used include linear SIS/SI block copolymers known as Kraton
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

6
D-1107 and D-1112, SBS/SB block copolymers known as Kraton D-1101,
D-1102 and DX-1300” (id. at col. 7, ll. 42-45).
9. Sasaki “compares the performance of an adhesive formulation
based solely on SIS (Control 1) and a blend of SB and SIS (Example 17)”
and concludes that the “looptack performance is substantially improved for
the mixture of elastomers as compared to compositions based on SIS alone
and the same tackifying additives” (id. at col. 10, ll. 27-34).
Analysis
Based on the foregoing findings of fact (FF), we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to include styrene-
isoprene-styrene and styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymers at a
weight ratio from 5:1 to 1:5 in Lee’s adhesive composition in an effort to
improve adhesive properties (Ans. 5).
Appellant argues, however, that Lee and Sasaki are not properly
combinable (App. Br. 3). We do not agree. Lee and Sasaki both relate to
adhesives containing styrene-based elastomer (FF 1 & 7). Although Sasaki
is directed to a pressure-sensitive adhesive (FF 4), Appellant has not
presented sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the position that
“Sasaki’s disclosure is simply not pertinent to the issue of how to improve
adhesion in the context of adhesives based on LLDPE and grafted
polyethylene” (App. Br. 5).
With regard to the experimental evidence presented in the
Specification, we agree that it tends to show improved adhesion using an
SIS/SBS blend rather than each copolymer individually. However, we agree
with the Examiner that there is insufficient evidence on this record
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

7
indicating that this would have been unexpected in view of Sasaki, which
discloses that “an admixture of a first natural or synthetic elastomer
providing a first polymerized diene, preferably polybutadiene, . . . and a
second natural or synthetic elastomer providing a second polymerized diene
component, preferably polyisoprene,” provides “excellent adhesive
properties” (FF 4-5) and shows, in particular, that the “looptack performance
is substantially improved for [a blend of SB and SIS] as compared to
compositions based on SIS alone and the same tackifying additives” (FF 9).
Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to include styrene-isoprene-styrene and
styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymers at a weight ratio from 5:1 to
1:5 in Lee’s adhesive composition. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection over Lee and Sasaki.
II
In rejecting claims 11-17, the Examiner additionally relies on Hattori
(Ans. 7). Appellant argues that Hattori fails to cure “the deficiencies
identified in the combined teachings of Lee and Sasaki” (App. Br. 8).
However, because we conclude, for the reasons stated above, that the
combination of Lee and Sasaki is not deficient, we are not persuaded by this
argument. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection over Lee, Sasaki,
and Hattori for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2010-010881
Application 12/006,370

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

alw