Ex Parte Craamer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

11886714 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111886,714 0912012007
32894 7590 08/04/2016
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER LLP
Rembrandt Tower 31st Floor
Amstelplein 1
Amsterdam, 1096 HA
NETHERLANDS
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johannes Antonius Craamer
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.
07054.0009.USPO 6811
EXAMINER
CHEV ALIER, ALICIA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
amdocketing@hoyngrokh.com
ronny.amirsehhi@hoyngrokh.com
david.owen@hoyngrokh.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES ANTONIUS CRAAMER and
JAMES E. FOX
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 15-20 and 22. 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed September
20, 2007, the Final Office Action mailed July 16, 2013 (Final Act.),
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed July 14, 2014, the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) mailed September 8, 2014, and Appellants' Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed November 10, 2014.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ten Cate Advanced Textiles
B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 1-14, 21, 23, and 24 were canceled by an amendment filed January
16, 2014. An Advisory Action mailed February 10, 2014 stated the
amendment was entered. Therefore, the §103(a) rejections of claims 1-14,
21, 23, and 24 are not before us on appeal.
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of finishing a textile
(see, e.g., claim 15). Appellants disclose that textile production traditionally
occurs in a number of distinct processes, such as the production of fibers,
spinning of the fibers, manufacture of cloth from the fibers, upgrading of the
cloth, and the production of an end product from the cloth. Spec. ,-i 2.
Textile upgrading can include preparing, bleaching, optically whitening,
colouring, and finishing a textile. Id. These upgrading operations can
require a number of steps or processes, which can occur in separate devices.
Spec. ,-i,-i 3, 10, and 11.
Appellants disclose that ink-jet printing technology has been proposed
for applying substances to a textile in one process run by using a series of
nozzles arranged in rows. Spec. ,-i,-i 12 and 14. Appellants disclose
continuous inkjet printing as a preferred method for applying substances to a
textile. Spec. ,-i 17. However, Appellants disclose that many upgrading
compositions are unsuitable for continuous inkjet printing because droplet
volumes are low and the size of particles in the compositions can lead to
clogging of printing nozzles. Spec. ,-i 20. In view of the above, Appellants
disclose a finishing composition for continuous inkjet techniques that
provides effective and reliable droplet deposition without clogging nozzles.
Spec. ,-i 22.
Independent claim 15, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to Appellants' Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
2
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
The limitations at issue are italicized.
15. A method of finishing a textile comprising:
supplying a continually moving textile substrate;
providing an array of continuous flow in~et nozzles, wherein the
nozzles apply a finishing composition continuously to the moving textile
substrate;
supplying to the nozzles the finishing composition for finishing
but not colouring the substrate, the composition comprising a
dispersion or emulsion of a functional finishing agent in water, wherein
the water is present at between 50 and 90 wt% in the jetted composition,
selectively dispensing the composition from the nozzles in a
series of droplets to deposit a predetermined distribution of droplets
onto the substrate;
wherein the jetted composition has a conductivity of greater than
500µS/cm, the size of particles in the dispersion or emulsion of the
finishing composition is less than 5 microns; and
wherein a total residual solids of the functional finishing agent in
the dispensed composition is at least 4 wt%.
Appeal Br. 17.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 15, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Radomyselski,4 in view of Kissel, 5 Kortmann,6 Erickson,7 and
Dawson· 8
'
(2) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Radomyselski, Kissel, Kortmann, Erickson, and Dawson and
further in view of Tachihara. 9
4 Radomyselski et al., US 6,746,617 B2, issued June 8, 2004
("Radomyselski").
5 Kissel, US 5,173,531 A, issued Dec. 22, 1992 ("Kissel").
6 Kortmann et al., US 4,781,844, issued Nov. 1, 1988 ("Kortmann").
7 Erickson, US 3,968,042, issued July 6, 1976 ("Erickson").
8 Dawson et al., GB 2 187 419 A, published Sept. 9, 1987 ("Dawson").
9 Tachihara et al., US 6,350,016 Bl, issued Feb. 26, 2002 ("Tachihara").
3
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
(3) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Radomyselski, Kissel, Kortmann, Erickson, and Dawson
and further in view of Berry; 10
(4) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Radomyselski, Kissel, Kortmann, Erickson, and Dawson
and further in view of Horike; 11 and
(5) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Radomyselski, Kissel, Kortmann, Erickson, and Dawson
and further in view of Schulz. 12
ANALYSIS
Rejection (1)
The Examiner finds Radomyselski discloses wrinkle reduction
compositions for fabrics including a wrinkle control agent in an amount of at
least about 30% and less than about 90%, and water as a preferred main
liquid carrier. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds Radomyselski discloses
that the composition may include additional finishing agents, such as
antistatic agents. Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner finds Radomyselski does not disclose the conductivity
of the wrinkle reduction composition. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds
Kissel discloses treating a textile material with salt composition to provide
an antistatic property. Id. Kissel discloses an electrical conductivity of
greater than 10-10 Seimens/cm for the composition. Id. The Examiner
10 Berry, US 4,065,773, issued Dec. 27, 1977 ("Berry").
11 Horike et al., US 4,426,652, issued Jan. 17, 1984 ("Horike").
12 Schulz et al., US 6,979,480B1, issued Dec. 27, 2005 ("Schulz").
4
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
concludes it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of finishing
agent in order to obtain a desired effect and to use the salt composition of
Kissel in the wrinkle reduction composition of Radomyselski to provide an
antistatic property. Final Act. 13.
The Examiner finds Radomyselski discloses polymer particulates in
the wrinkle reduction composition are small in size but Radomyselski does
not disclose particles in the finishing agent that have a size of less than 5
microns. Id. The Examiner finds Kortmann discloses a textile finishing
agent comprising a colloidal suspension having a particle size distribution of
about 200 to 500 Angstroms. Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to use the particle size disclosed by Kortmann for
the wrinkle reduction composition of Radomyselski because Radomyselski
prefers small particles to dispense a fine mist when treating textiles. Final
Act. 14.
The Examiner finds Radomyselski discloses the dilution of the
wrinkle reduction composition with water but does not disclose a total
residual solids content for the composition. Id. The Examiner finds
Erickson discloses a finishing agent for use on polyolefin fibers, wherein the
finishing agent, when dispersed in water, is about 1 to about 20 weight
percent solids. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
optimize the amount of residual solids in the wrinkle reduction composition
of Radomyselski because Radomyselski prefers to dilute the composition for
fabric treatment. Final Act. 15.
The Examiner further finds Radomyselski discloses spraying droplets
onto fabric by any means known to those in the art, such as via nozzles.
Final Act. 21. The Examiner finds Radomyselski does not disclose
5
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
supplying the droplets to a continually moving textile substrate. Id. The
Examiner finds Dawson discloses the use of needle-like or capillary jets to
apply liquid to a web or sheet material moving continuously relative to the
jets. Id. The jets are arranged in a plurality of rows with each row
extending transverse to the path of the material to provide a continuous flow
during deposition of the liquid. Final Act. 22. The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to modify Radomyselski in view of Dawson to
allow instantaneous variation of a quantity of liquid supplied to a material at
any time and to permit consistent, uniform application of the liquid. Final
act. 22-23.
Appellants traverse the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 15 by asserting
Radomyselski does not disclose a continuous inkjet nozzle method or using
such a method for the textiles used in the process disclosed by
Radomyselski. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants' argument is not persuasive
of reversible error because the Examiner finds Dawson, not Radomyselski,
discloses an array of inkjet nozzles that provide a continuous flow of liquid.
Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Radomyselski discloses spraying of its
composition may be accomplished by any means known to those in the art,
including nozzles, and it would have been obvious to modify Radomyselski
in view of Dawson. Ans. 5. Therefore, the argument directed to
Radomyselski does not address the Examiner's findings regarding the
disclosure of Dawson.
Appellants further contend Dawson fails to cure the deficiencies of
Radomyselski because Dawson does not disclose a continuous flow inkjet
process. Appeal Br. 12-14. Specifically, Appellants argue continuous flow
inkjets receive a composition in a continuous flow, break up the flow in
6
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
nozzles "to form droplets while simultaneously applying an electric field to
charge the droplets, and apply a second electric field so as to deflect the
drops." Appeal Br. 13.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As stated
by the Examiner at page 10 of the Answer, claim 15 does not require the
electric fields argued by Appellants. Moreover, although Appellants cite to
the Specification to assert how a continuous flow inkjet process would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, 13 Appellants'
arguments amount to an importation of limitations from the Specification.
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations
contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not part of the claim." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, Appellants
are free to amend the claims to give them a narrower meaning supported by
the written description. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In addition, Appellants contend Dawson does not disclose continuous
flow inkjet nozzles because the jets of Dawson are operated in short pulses
of droplets, which makes its deposition non-continuous. Appeal Br. 13. To
address this argument, we consider the recitations of claim 15. Claim 15
recites "providing an array of continuous flow inkjet nozzles, wherein the
nozzles apply a finishing composition continuously to the moving textile
substrate," "supplying to the nozzles the finishing composition," and
"selectively dispensing the composition from the nozzles in a series of
13 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
7
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
droplets." Therefore, the finishing composition is applied "continuously to
the moving textile substrate" in the method of claim 15 via the series of
droplets selectively dispensed from the nozzles.
Dawson discloses an apparatus for applying liquid to a web or sheet
material in which the liquid is supplied to a plurality of needle-like or
capillary jets. Dawson, Abstract. The jets are controlled by valves to
rapidly open and close to provide the liquid in a succession of pulses.
Dawson 1 :75-89. Dawson discloses that the jets provide the liquid as
discrete droplets. Dawson 2:5-6. Therefore, the disclosure of Dawson
supports the Examiner's findings that Dawson discloses the use of jets to
apply liquid to a web or sheet material moving continuously relative to the
jets, wherein the jets provide a continuous flow during deposition of the
liquid as discrete droplets. Ans. 21-22. These findings meet the recitations
of claim 15 for applying a finishing composition continuously to a moving
textile substrate by selectively dispensing the composition from nozzles in a
series of droplets. As a result, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of
reversible error.
In addition, Appellants assert Dawson discloses the deposition of a
solution, not a liquid as a water-based dispersion or emulsion, as recited in
claim 15. Reply Br. 8. This argument does not address the Examiner's
rejection because the Examiner finds Radomyselski discloses a dispersion.
Final Act. 15. Radomyselski supports the Examiner's finding by disclosing
its wrinkle reduction composition can be a dispersion. Radomyselski 4:55-
62.
Appellants contend the Examiner has exercised impermissible
hindsight and Radomyselski is non-analogous art. In particular, Appellants
8
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
assert one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used continuous inkjet
nozzles to apply a finishing composition and Radomyselski is directed to
finished textile products for end consumers in the common household, not to
Appellants' problem or purpose of finishing textiles via continuous inkjet
techniques. Appeal Br. 12, 14, and 15; Reply Br. 8-11.
The Examiner finds claim 15 is not limited to the continuous flow
inkjet process argued by Appellants because claim 15 does not recite
charging and deflecting droplets via an electric field. Ans. 9 and 12-13. We
agree with the Examiner for the reasons discussed above with regard to the
recitations of claim 15. Moreover, the Examiner finds Radomyselski
discloses its wrinkle reduction composition is sprayed via any suitable
means known in the art, including nozzles, and is not limited to the care of
conventional fabrics for the common household. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner
further finds Radomyselski is in the field of Appellants' endeavor and
reasonably pertinent to Appellants' problem because it discloses finishing a
textile via a composition dispensed from nozzles and therefore is analogous
art. Ans. 13. Appellants respond to the Examiner's finding by maintaining
that Radomyselski is directed to end user products and contending the
Examiner is ignoring the term "finishing" in claim 15, which clearly refers
to a textile production step. Reply Br. 10-11. This argument is
unpersuasive because Radomyselski discloses its wrinkle reduction
composition may include additional agents, such as an antistatic agent, 14
which meets the definition of finishing agent set forth in paragraph 3 7 of the
Specification and because Radomyselski discloses the application of a
14 Radomyselski 7:33-67.
9
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
finishing agent. 15 Thus, Appellants' argument does not provide a distinction
between Radomyselski and Appellants' asserted field of textile production
because both regard the application of a finishing agent.
Appellants assert the Examiner finds "colouring" falls within the
scope of "finishing" but claim 15 and Appellants' Specification distinguish
colouring from a finishing composition. Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 5-7.
Appellants further argue the cleaning composition of Radomyselski is not a
textile finishing composition because a cleaning fluid is a different
composition than a finishing composition, has different properties, and is
disclosed by Radomyselski as being removed after treatment. Appeal Br.
11.
These arguments do not address the Examiner's rejection because the
Examiner finds Radomyselski teaches a "finishing" treatment in addition to
a "colouring" step. Ans. 2. In addition, the Examiner finds Radomyselski
discloses its wrinkle reduction composition can include additional
ingredients, including an antistatic agent, and describes a finishing-agent
composition. Ans. 7; Radomyselski, 7:33-67 and 19:11-35. Paragraph 37
of Appellants' Specification defines an anti-static agent as a finishing agent.
Therefore, Radomyselski supports the Examiner's finding.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Radomyselski does not suggest a
water content between 50 and 90 wt%, as recited in claim 15. Reply Br. 8.
This argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief, nor have Appellants
shown good cause for introducing it for the first time in the Reply Brief.
Therefore, this argument will not be considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2)
15 Radomyselski 24: 19-22.
10
Appeal2015-001372
Application 11/886,714
(2014). 16
Appellants have not advanced separate arguments for claims 19 and
22. Appeal Br. 3 and 16.
For the reasons discussed above and for the reasons expressed in the
Answer, the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 15, 19, and 22 over the
combination of Radomyselski, Kissel, Kortmann, Erickson, and Dawson is
sustained.
Rejections (2)-(5)
Appellants have not advanced separate arguments for claims 16-18
and 20. Appeal Br. 3 and 16. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims
16-18 and 20 are sustained.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons in the Examiner's Answer
and above, the Examiner's rejections are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ).
AFFIRMED
16 We note Radomyselski teaches a water content in the composition up to
90 wt%. Radomyselski 15:6-16.
11