Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2018

14020343 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)

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.
14/020,343 09/06/2013 Sangho Cho 75148-US-NP
(DOW0017US)
3578
14268 7590 02/12/2018
The Dow Chemical Company/Cantor Colburn LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3207
EXAMINER
WALKE, AMANDA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 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):
ffuimpc@dow.com
u sptopatentmail @ C antorColburn .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGHO CHO, GUORONG SUN,
KAREN L. WOOLEY, JAMES W. THACKERAY,
and PETER TREFONAS III
Appeal 2017-005339
Application 14/020,343
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a graft copolymer. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A graft block copolymer comprising:
a first block polymer; the first block polymer comprising
a backbone polymer and a first graft polymer; where the first
graft polymer comprises a repeat unit comprising a surface
energy reducing moiety chosen from a halocarbon containing
moiety, a silicon containing moiety, or a combination of a
halocarbon moiety and a silicon containing moiety; and
Appeal 2017-005339
Application 14/020,343
a second block polymer; the second block polymer being
covalently bonded to the first block; wherein the second block
comprises the backbone polymer and a second graft polymer;
where the second graft polymer comprises a functional group
that is operative to undergo acid-catalyzed deprotection causing
a change of solubility of the graft block copolymer in a
developer solvent.
The Reference
Xia US 2013/0324666 A1 Dec. 5,2013
The Rejection
Claims 1—5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xia.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 5—12). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim. Claims 2—5 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Xia’s formulas FX4 and FX5 show a graft copolymer comprising a
first block polymer having a backbone polymer (portion within ( )m) and
a first graft copolymer with an aryl repeat unit (portion within ( )p)
which, Xia indicates, can be fluorinated flflf 141, 142, 154), and a second
block polymer which is covalently bonded to the first block polymer and has
a backbone polymer (portion within ( )n) and a second graft polymer with
an ester group repeat unit (portion within ( )q) which is a functional group
operative to undergo acid-catalyzed deprotection causing a change of
solubility of the graft block copolymer in a developer solvent (Appellants’
Spec. 137).
2
Appeal 2017-005339
Application 14/020,343
The Appellants assert that “the structure of Xia could contain a variety
of different molecules that contain heteroatoms and none of these
heteroatoms could be repeat units of a graft copolymer (that contain a
surface energy reducing moiety) that is bonded to each repeat unit of a block
polymer” (Reply Br. 4), and Xia is “so overly broad and vague that a skilled
portion [sic, person] in the art could not arrive at the claimed invention”
(id.).
Xia’s disclosure that fluorine is an optional substituent in any aryl
group (11141, 142) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through
no more than ordinary creativity, to use fluorine as an aryl group substituent
in formulas FX4 and FX5. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”).
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xia is
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED
3