Ex Parte Dairoku et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 28, 201111353238 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/353,238 02/14/2006 Yorimichi Dairoku 50685 3776 1609 7590 06/28/2011 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1764 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte YORIMICHI DAIROKU, SHIN-ICHI FUJINO, MOTOHIRO IMURA and SEIJI KATO ____________ Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, 17, 19 through 25 and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ invention relates “to a method for the production of a water absorbent resin and to the resulting water absorbent resin.” App. Br. 2. Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative: 1. A method for production of a water absorbent resin which comprises: a step of obtaining a polymer gel having a water absorbing property, a step of obtaining an agglomerated gel by adding an aqueous fluid containing at least one additive selected from the group consisting of thermal initiators, oxidizing agents and reducing agents to the fine powder which is obtained in the production of a water absorbent resin and has a weight average particle diameter falling within the range of 10 to 150 µm, wherein the amount of said aqueous fluid added is not less than 25 parts by weight but not greater than 150 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the fine powder, and a step of drying while allowing said agglomerated gel and said polymer gel to coexist, wherein a ratio (A/B) of the solid content rate A (%) of the agglomerated gel to the solid content rate B (%) of the polymer gel is not less than 1/3 but not greater than 3 in said step of drying. Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 3 17. A water absorbent resin which comprises a polymer gel having a water absorbing property and an agglomerated gel, wherein said agglomerated gel consists of fine powders having a weight average particle diameter falling within the range of from 10 to 150 µm; ratio (A/B) of the solid content rate A (%) of said agglomerated gel to the solid content rate B (%) of the polymer gel is not less than 1/3 but not greater than 3, and the amount of residual monomer is not lower than 0 but not higher than 500 ppm. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Dairoku et al. US 6,458,921 B1 October 1, 2002 Kim WO 02/053605 July 11, 2002 Appellants, App. Br., request review of the following rejection from the Examiner’s final office action:1 Claims 1-4, 9-12, 17, 19-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dairoku in view of Kim.2 OPINION The prior art rejection The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Dairoku and Kim would have led one skilled in the art to form an agglomerated gel by the addition of an aqueous 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12, 17, 19-25 and 27, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dairoku in view of Bailey. Ans. 3. 2 We note that the Examiner relied on the English equivalent of WO 02/053605 to Kim (US 6,914,099 B2) in discussing the reference in the rejection. Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 4 additive solution to reduce the residual monomer content as required by the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17? We answer this question in the negative, therefore we affirm. Appellants argue that neither Dairoku nor Kim form an agglomerated gel as claimed. App. Br. 6, 7. According to Appellants, “[t]he agglomerated gel within the ordinary meaning of the claimed invention refers to particles that include multiple fine powders.” Id. at 7. The Examiner has pointed to a specific portion of Dairoku (col. 11, ll. 33-49) where Dairoku forms a particulate aggregate of a plurality of particles in the aqueous liquid. Ans. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument since Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s response. Appellants also argue that Dairoku “does not disclose adding an aqueous additive solution to fine particles of the water absorbent resin to agglomerate the fines.” App. Br. 6. The Examiner is relying on Kim to teach the addition of an additive to an aqueous solution to reduce the residual monomer content by treating water absorbent particles. Ans. 8. We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive and agree with the Examiner that the addition of Kim’s additive (peroxodisulfate) to the aqueous solution of Dairoku to treat the particle aggregates will necessarily result in reduced residual monomer content. Appellants further argue that Dairoku “does not combine or mix agglomerated fines containing an aqueous additive solution with a water absorbing polymer gel and drying the agglomerated gel and the polymer gel together where the solid content of the agglomerated gel and the solid content of the polymer gel is within the claimed range” as claimed. App. Br. Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 5 6. Specifically, Appellants argue that the combination of Dairoku and Kim does not disclose the solid content ratio of the agglomerated gel and the polymer gel of not less than 1/3 and not greater than 3 or adding an amount of the aqueous fluid of not less than 25 parts by weight and not greater than 150 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the fine powder. App. Br. 8-9. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellants’ statement that Dairoku does not mix the aggregate powder with the polymer gel is unsupported by the evidence. Further, the Examiner has pointed to specific sections of Dairoku addressing the solid content ratio and the amount of aqueous fluid used. Ans. 8. Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s position. Appellants argue that Kim’s Examples 13-16 where only the polymer gel is treated with the aqueous peroxodisulfate solution and Examples 17-20 where peroxodisulfate treated rehydrated and swollen fines are used show “almost no difference between the residual monomer content in the two Examples.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). We note that the Examples referenced above illustrate two ways in which the additive can be added to the polymer. Dairoku, col. 9, ll. 6-9. The Examiner relies on Examples 17- 20 to show that the resulting product of Kim will have residual monomer content below 500 ppm. Ans. 9. We have considered Appellants’ arguments but are unpersuaded. Appellants have not adequately refuted the Examiner’s position that Kim’s Examples 17-20 show that the use of an additive (peroxodisulfate) will result in a product with a residual monomer content below 500 ppm. Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 6 Appellants also argue that the examples in the Specification “demonstrate that there is some interaction between the agglomerated gel and the polymer gel when the agglomerated gel has the treating agent when drying them together and that the interaction is not predictable or reasonably expected.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds that the examples in the specification are not commensurate with the scope of the present claims because the degree to which the residual monomer content is lowered is dependent on the amount of peroxodisulfate added. However, the resultant amount of residual monomer content is not recited in the present claims. Ans. 12-13. We agree with the Examiner that the information provided by the examples in the specification is insufficient evidence of unexpected results. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. We address the dependent claims as follows. Appellants argue that dependent “[c]laim 2 is not obvious for reciting heating the aqueous fluid before adding to the fine powder in combination with the process steps of claim 1.” App. Br. 18. We agree with the Examiner that the primary reference Dairoku teaches the heating of the aqueous liquid. Ans. 9. Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 23 through 25, identification of additional limitations of the claims is not in itself an argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Regarding dependent claims 9, 10, 21, 22 and 27, in addition to merely pointing out additional limitations, Appellants provide a conclusory statement that the combination of Dairoku and Kim does not disclose an Appeal 2010-002217 Application 11/353,238 7 agglomerated gel. Appellants have not addressed the specific analysis by the Examiner or the teachings of the prior art. For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejection. ORDER The rejection of claims 1through 4, 9 through 12, 17, 19 through 25 and 27 under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dairoku and Kim 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)(1)(v). AFFIRMED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation