Ex Parte DeJesus et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201813832917 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/832,917 03/15/2013 M. Cristina B. DeJesus N-3363.NWN-US 4642 31217 7590 Henkel Corporation One Henkel Way Rocky Hill, CT 06067 EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2018 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): rhpatentmail @henkel. com trish.russo@henkel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte M. CRISTINA B. DEJESUS, YUHONG HU, and MARIA XENIDOU Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,9171 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15—20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant is the applicant, Henkel IP & Holding GmbH, and the Appeal Brief identifies the Appellant as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,917 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to a stretch film lamination that could be used, for example, as part of a personal care garment such as a diaper. Spec. Tflf 1—2. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A stretch film lamination adhesive consisting of: a) metallocene catalyzed olefin block copolymer which has (1) a block of rigid crystalline and highly elastomeric amorphous segments, (2) a density greater or equal to 0.870g/cm3 and (3) a peak melting point greater than 100°C; b) a plasticizer which has a number average molecular weight greater than 1000 g/mol; c) from about 10 to about 70 wt% of a tackifier with a softening point greater than 110°C; and d) optionally, a secondary copolymer, antioxidant, stabilizer, pigment, dyestuff, filler and/or a wax selected from the group consisting of paraffin, microcrystalline, polyethylene, polypropylene, Fischer-Tropsch, or synthetic high melting point wax; wherein the olefin block copolymer is an ethylene copolymer; wherein the secondary copolymer is selected from the group consisting of metallocene catalyzed polyolefin, amorphous poly-a-olefm, styrene block copolymer and mixtures thereof. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App’x). 2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated January 29, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 29, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated November 1, 2016 (“Ans.”). 2 Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,917 REJECTION AND REFERENCES On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2010/0059178 Al, Mar. 11, 2010 (“Jiang”) in view of Yalvac et al., WO 2009/029476 Al, Mar. 5, 2009 (“Yalvac”) with evidence given in Karjala et al., US 2009/0105407 Al, Apr. 23, 2009 (“Karjala”) and Chapman et al., US 2007/0100053 Al, May 3, 2007 (“Chapman). Final Act. 3. The Examiner provides citations to Yalvac et al., US 2011/0262747 Al, Oct. 27, 2011, because it is a translation of Yalvac, and we do the same. Id. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by the Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 4—8. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Jiang discloses a stretch bonded laminate having an adhesive containing metallocene catalyzed ethylene-octene 3 Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,917 copolymer with properties overlapping those recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Jiang). The Examiner finds that Jiang teaches use of a tackifier with percentage and properties overlapping those recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds that Karjala and Chapman teach resin softening point and average molecular weight. Id. at 4 (citing Karjala and Chapman). The Examiner finds that “Jiang fails to disclose copolymer [that] has a block of highly rigid crystalline and highly elastomeric amorphous segments.” Id. The Examiner finds that Yalvac discloses metallocene catalyzed ethylene alpha olefin copolymer comprising rigid crystalline and elastomeric amorphous segments. Id. (citing Yalvac). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Yalvac’s copolymer as the copolymer of Jiang in order to obtain tear strength, high temperature recovery, and other beneficial physical properties. Id. Appellant argues that Jiang fails to contemplate an olefin block copolymer and argues that Jiang’s olefin copolymer would not have been replaced with a block copolymer. Appeal Br. 5. The evidence weighs against this argument because Jiang teaches that its base polyolefin polymer can include “block copolymer elastomers.” Jiang | 57. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Yalvac teaches that its copolymer provides beneficial physical properties and does not directly dispute the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the teachings of Yalvac and Jiang. Appellant also argues that Jiang requires use of a functionalized polyolefin and argues that claim 1 forbids use of a functionalized polyolefin. We disagree on both points. Appeal Br. 6. As to the first point, the 4 Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,917 Examiner finds that Jiang teaches a formulation with no functionalized polyolefin. Ans. 2 (citing Jiang 1149). Appellant does not address this portion of Jiang and does not persuasively dispute this finding of fact. As to the second point, claim 1 permits inclusion of a Fischer-Tropsch or a synthetic high melting point wax. The Specification states that such materials may be oxidized and suggests that functionalized waxes may be considered synthetic. Spec 136. Meanwhile, Jiang similarly teaches that functionalized can mean that a polymer base had been contacted by an acid. Jiang | 80. Thus, the evidence of record indicates that Fischer-Tropsch or synthetic high melting point waxes may be examples of functionalized polyolefins permitted by claim 1. Jiang teaches that, when it uses a functionalized polyolefin, the functionalized polyolefin can be or include a functionalized wax. Jiang | 84. Appellant also argues that even if Jiang and Yalvac were combined, the “block copolymer” recitation of claim 1 would not be met. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant alleges that Yalvac instead teaches interpolymers where “two monomers are randomly distributed within each block.” Id. at 7. The preponderance of the evidence does not support Appellant’s position. Rather, Yalvac teaches multi-block copolymers of the formula (AB)n where “‘A’ represents a hard block or segment and ‘B’ represents a soft block or segment.” Yalvac 137 (emphases added). Thus, A and B may be blocks rather than only being monomers as argued by Appellant. Yalvac also indicates that “[i]n other embodiments” (emphasis added) the A and B blocks are randomly distributed and teaches that in this embodiment, the copolymers do not have an AAA-AA-BBB-BB structure. Id. This statement indicates that in the first described embodiment (i.e., the 5 Appeal 2017-004572 Application 13/832,917 (AB)n embodiment), the A and B blocks are not randomly distributed. Moreover, even if the A and B blocks were randomly distributed, this would not mean that the copolymer is not a block copolymer as recited by claim 1 because Appellant’s Specification suggests that a block copolymer can also be a random copolymer. Spec. 121 (“The polymer component includes block and/or random copolymer.” (emphasis added)). Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15—20. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation