Ex Parte Donovan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13589219 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/589,219 08/20/2012
14269 7590 06/29/2016
The Dow Chemical Company/Ronald Baktile
P.O. BOX 1967
2040 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48641
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Megan DO NOV AN
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.
71470 1013
EXAMINER
RIETH, STEPHEN EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
FFUIMPC@dow.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEGAN DONOVAN, AL VIN M. MAURICE, EDWIN H.
NUNGESSER, and WEI ZHANG
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1through10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is generally directed to a thickened aqueous
dispersion of polymeric particles having a diameter of from 0.5 microns to
150 microns. Spec. 1, 11. 3---6. The polymers include 0.3 % to 10 % by
weight of copolymerized units of a monomer having a Hansch parameter of
2.5 to 10. Spec. 3, 11. 18-21. Such monomers include isobutyl methacrylate,
butyl methacrylate, styrene, alpha-methyl styrene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, 2-
ethylhexyl methacrylate, iso-bomyl methacrylate, lauryl acrylate, lauryl
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
methacrylate, and stearyl methacrylate. Spec. 3, 1. 24--4, 1. 3. The polymer
may be may be made with a single stage process, a multiple step process
such as a core/shell process, or a gradient process, and is formed in the
presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant, which is added to the
polymerization reaction before, during, or after addition of the monomer that
is being converted to the particulate polymer. Spec. 3, 11. 13-17; 6, 1. 24--28.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. An aqueous composition comprising:
a particulate polymer having a particle diameter of from
0.5 microns to 150 microns, said polymer comprising, as
copolymerized units, from 0.3 % to 10 %, by weight based on
said polymer weight, monomer having a Hansch parameter of
from 2.5 to 10, said polymer having been formed in the
presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant; and
from 0.1 % to 5 %, by weight based on said polymer
weight, thickener.
App. Br. 16, Claims Appendix.
Appellants (see App. Br., generally) request review of the following
rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action entered May 13, 2014:
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kawashima et al. (US 4,972,000, issued November 20,
1990) in view of Emmons et al. (US 4, 155,892, issued May 22, 1979) as
evidenced by National Research Council (U.S.), Prudent Practices in the
Laboratory: Handling and Disposal of Chemicals, 170-171, 1995
("Prudent Practices").
II. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kawashima, Emmons, and Brock et al. (US 5,556,912, issued September 17,
1996) as evidenced by Prudent Practices.
2
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
III. Claims 1--4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bardman et al. (US 2007 /0043162 Al, published February 22, 2007).
IV. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bardman as evidenced by Special Chem4Coatings (Natrosol 250 HR
Information).
V. Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chiou et al. (US 2007 /0218291 Al, published September 20, 2007).
VI. Claims 1--4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maeyama et al. (US 5,618,859, issued April 8, 1997).
VII. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeyama and Chiou.
VIII. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeyama as evidenced by Adachi (US 2011/0195262 Al, published August
11, 2011).
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1-10. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejection I: Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-101
The Examiner finds in essence that Kawashima suggests aqueous
coating compositions comprising a thickening agent and a particulate
polymer having the features recited in claim 1, including comprising styrene,
a monomer having a Hansch parameter of from 2.5 to 10, in an amount
1 Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-10 together. See Appeal Brief,
generally. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of this group of
claims, and claims 3, 4, and 7-10 will stand or fall with claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
included within the recited range. Ans. 2--4. We note that Kawashima
discloses additional suitable monomers that can be used for preparing the
particulate polymers disclosed in the reference, which include many of the
monomers described in Appellants' Specification as having a Hansch
parameter of from 2.5 to 10. Kawashima col. 6, 1. 7---col. 7, 1. 20. The
Examiner acknowledges that Kawashima does not disclose a particular
embodiment of the coating composition that includes a thickener in the
amount recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. To address this difference in
Kawashima, the Examiner relies on Emmons' disclosure of aqueous coating
compositions that include thickening agents in amounts that overlap the
amount recited in claim 1, and the Examiner further determines that
Emmons discloses that the amount of thickener is a result-effective
variable.2 Ans. 4--5.
Appellants do not dispute that Kawashima discloses aqueous coating
compositions that include a particulate polymer having a diameter
overlapping the range recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8. Nor do Appellants
dispute that Emmons establishes that the amount of thickener in aqueous
coating compositions is a result-effective variable. Id. Appellants'
arguments are mainly directed to the recitation in claim 1 regarding the
weight percentage of the monomer having a Hansch parameter of 2.5 to 10,
and the recitation in claim 1 regarding the polymer being formed in the
presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. Id.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the calculations that the Examiner
performed to determine the amount of styrene in the aqueous coating
2 A complete statement of the Examiner's fact finding is set forth in the
Answer at pages 2-8.
4
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
composition of Example 16 of Kawashima are "not unambiguous" because
it is unclear from Kawashima's disclosures whether the "parts as solids of an
aqueous dispersion" relied on by the Examiner to perform the calculations
refer to the weight of the dispersed particles or to the weight of the aqueous
dispersion. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants further contend that "there is no
motivation within Kawashima to effect this calculation and to base an
actionable teaching thereon." Id.
However, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that Kawashima' s reference to the "solids of an
aqueous dispersion" refers to the solids content of the dispersion. Ans. 23-
24. In addition, as discussed above, according to Appellants' Specification,
styrene is a monomer having a Hansch parameter of from 2.5 to 10, as
recited in claim 1. Spec. 4. The Examiner calculates the amount of styrene
in a polymer of the coating composition of Kawashima's Example 16 from
the explicit disclosures of the reference, and the calculated amount falls
within the range recited in claim 1. Ans. 2-3. Appellants do not explain
why one of ordinary skill in the art would be incapable of determining the
amount of styrene in the composition of Example 16 of Kawashima. App.
Br. 6-8. Nor do Appellants identify any error in the Examiner's
calculations, or dispute the Examiner's finding that the calculated amount of
styrene falls within the range recited in claim 1. Id. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are without persuasive merit.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's reliance on Kawashima's
Example Q-9 for disclosure of a particulate polymer formed in the presence
of a non-formaldehyde reductant is flawed because only one stage of the
multi-stage process used to form the particulate polymer of this example is
5
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
performed in the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. App. Br. 7.
However, the recitation in claim 1 of "said polymer having been formed in
the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant" without requiring such
formation of the polymer be accomplished by more than one stage is a
product-by-process limitation, the patentability of which is based on the
product itself, and not on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F .2d
695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On this record, Appellants do not provide any
evidence or reasoning establishing an unobvious difference between the
relied-upon particulate polymer produced according to Example Q-9 of
Kawashima and the particulate polymer recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8.
Nor do Appellants establish that use of a non-formaldehyde reductant to
produce a particulate polymer as recited in claim 1 would result in a
particulate polymer that is structurally distinct or different from the
particulate polymer produced according to Kawashima's Example Q-9. Id.
Thus, Appellants do not establish the criticality of using a non-formaldehyde
reductant to form the particulate polymer recited in claim 1. In re Marosi,
710 F.2d 798, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (for product-by-process claims, once the
examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product
appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced
by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with
evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product
and the prior art product.)
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification
describes a process that is similar to that of Kawashima's Example Q-9 for
preparing particulate polymers in which only one stage of a multi-stage
process is performed in the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. Ans.
6
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
25; Spec. 15-24. Appellants' arguments are therefore unpersuasive of
reversible error.
Appellants also argue that Emmons discloses a broad range for the
amount of thickener that may be used in a latex polymer system, and
contend that Emmons' disclosure lacks sufficient specificity to suggest the
levels recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. However, Appellants do not dispute
that Emmons recognizes that the amount of thickener in an aqueous coating
composition is a result-effective variable. App. Br. 6-8. In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the
prior art that a property [or a result] is affected by the variable is sufficient to
find the variable result-effective.") Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the
art reasonably would have had sufficient skill to determine an appropriate
amount of thickener to incorporate into an aqueous coating composition to
achieve desired properties, such as an amount of thickener recited in claim 1.
In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum
value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within
the skill of the art.") Appellants do not provide evidence demonstrating the
criticality of the recited range (App. Br. 6-8), and thus Appellants'
arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and
7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kawashima and Emmons,
evidenced by Prudent Practices.
Rejection II
Claim 8 requires the composition of claim 1 to further comprise an
emulsion polymer or a polyurethane dispersion having a calculated Tg of
7
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
from -60°C to 150°C and a particle diameter of from 50 nm to 490 nm. The
Examiner finds that Kawashima discloses aqueous coating compositions
comprising polymeric pigment binder emulsions having a Tg of from -50 °C
to 40 °C. Ans. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that Kawashima does not
disclose the particle diameter of polymeric pigment binder, and relies on
Brock's teaching of aqueous binder dispersions used in coating compositions
that have a particle size of 30-500 nm and impart hardness and water
resistance to the compositions. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the binders
disclosed in Brock in the aqueous coating compositions of Kawashima to
provide hardness and water resistance. Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Brock,
Kawashima, or Emmons to combine the selected components of the three
references relied on by the Examiner to solve the problem faced by
Appellants of providing useful thickened aqueous compositions. App. Br. 9.
However, Appellants do not squarely address the Examiner's basis for the
proposed combination of Brock with Kawashima and Emmons, which is
Brock's disclosure of polyurethane binder dispersions that impart improved
hardness and water resistance to aqueous coating compositions. Id. Like
Brock, both Kawashima and Emmons disclose aqueous coating
compositions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have
been led, through no more than ordinary skill and creativity, to utilize a
polyurethane binder dispersion having a particle size of 30 to 500 nm as
disclosed in Brock, in the aqueous coating composition suggested by the
combination of Kawashima and Emmons, to improve the hardness and water
resistance of the suggested composition as taught by Brock. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
8
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
Telej1ex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) ("[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
combination is obvious.") Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive of reversible error, and we therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawashima,
Emmons, and Brock as evidenced by Prudent Practices.
Rejections III and V, and Rejection VI: Claims 1--4 and 7-103
The Examiner finds in essence that each of Bardman, Chiou, and
Maeyama suggest aqueous coating compositions that comprise a thickening
agent in an amount within the range recited in claim 1, and a particulate
polymer having the features recited in claim 1, including comprising styrene,
a monomer having a Hansch parameter of from 2.5 to 10, in an amount
encompassing the range recited in claim 1. 4 Ans. 9-10, 13-19. \Ve note
that each of Bardman, Chiou, and Maeyama disclose additional suitable
monomers that can be used to prepare particulate polymers, which include
many of the monomers described in Appellants' Specification as having a
Hansch parameter of from 2.5 to 10. Bardman i-f 7; Chiou i-f 34; Maeyama
col. 3, 1. 51---col. 4, 1. 40.
3 For Rejection III, Appellants argue claims 1--4 and 6-10 together on the
basis of claim 1; for Rejection V, Appellants argue claims 1-10 together on
the basis of claim 1 ; and for Rejection VI, Appellants argue claims 1--4 and
7-10 together on the basis of claim 1. App. Br. 9-14. Therefore, we select
claim 1 as representative of each group of claims, which will stand or fall
with claim 1.
4 A complete statement of the Examiner's fact finding is set forth in the
Answer at pages 9-21.
9
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
Appellants do not dispute that each of Bardman, Chiou, and ivfaeyama
disclose aqueous coating compositions that include a particulate polymer
having a diameter overlapping or within the range recited in claim 1, and
that further include a thickener in an amount within the range recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 9-14. Appellants' arguments are mainly directed to the
recitation in claim 1 of the weight percentage of the monomer having a
Hansch parameter of 2.5 to 10, and recitation that the polymer is formed in
the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. Id.
Specifically, with respect to Bardman and Chiou, Appellants argue
that the Examiner does not identify any suggestion or motivating factor that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to undertake the calculations
that the Examiner performed to determine the amount of styrene included in
the particulate polymers of the aqueous coating compositions disclosed in
each of the references. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants further argue that the
breadth of the range of styrene content in the particulate polymers of
Bardman calculated by the Examiner-I % to 80 %--would not have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to the much narrower range recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue that the disclosure in Chiou and
Maeyama of a lower limit of 0 % for the range of styrene content in the
particulate polymers would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize styrene in the polymers. App. Br. 11-13.
However, Appellants do not dispute that each ofBardman, Chiou, and
Maeyama disclose particulate polymers in aqueous coating compositions
that include an amount of styrene encompassing the range recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 9-14), thus rendering the recited range of 0.3 % to 10 % of
monomer having a Hansch parameter of 2.5 to 10 prima facie obvious. In re
10
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In cases involving
overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that
even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness .
. . . Selecting a narrow range from within a somewhat broader range
disclosed in a prior art reference is no less obvious than identifying a range
that simply overlaps a disclosed range. In fact, when, as here, the claimed
ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion is even
more compelling than in cases of mere overlap.") Therefore, Appellants'
arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellants argue that data provided in the Specification establish the
criticality of the lower limit of monomer having a Hansch parameter of from
2.5 to 10. App. Br. 11-13. Specifically, Appellants refer to the data
presented in Table 2.1 of the Specification showing that the compositions of
inventive Examples 2 and 3, which comprise particulate polymers that
include 0.5 % by weight of alpha-methyl styrene, exhibited improved
sediment and syneresis relative to the compositions of comparative
Examples H and I, which comprise particulate polymers that do not include
monomer having a Hansch parameter of from 2.5 to 10. App. Br. 11-13;
Spec. 15-18,23-24.
However, the law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims. These cases have consistently held that in such a
situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical,
generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range. See, e.g., In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578
(Fed. Cir. 1990). To meet this burden, Appellants must demonstrate that the
11
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
data presented in the Specification provide unexpected results that are
reasonably commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims
on appeal. In reKlosak, 455F.2d1077, 1080(CCPA1972) ("the burden of
showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them"); see also In re
Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Even assuming that the
results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of
the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims."); In
re Greenfield, 571F.2d1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) ("Establishing that one (or
a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for
'it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must
be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to
support."' (Quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F .2d 791, 792 ( CCP A 1971)))
However, Appellants do not adequately explain why data for two
compositions that each include the same monomer (alpha-methyl styrene) at
a single concentration (0.5 % by weight) is reasonably commensurate with
the amounts and types of monomer having a Hansch parameter of 2.5 to 10
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-13. Accordingly, on this record, Appellants
do not provide persuasive evidence demonstrating the criticality of the entire
scope of the amounts and types of a monomer having a Hansch parameter
within the range recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's reliance on Bardman's
Example 30 for disclosure of a particulate polymer formed in the presence of
a non-formaldehyde reductant is flawed because only one stage of the multi-
stage process used to form the particulate polymer of this example is
performed in the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. App. Br. 10.
However, as discussed above, Appellants do not establish the criticality of
12
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
using a non-formaldehyde reductant in more than one stage to form the
particulate polymer recited in claim 1 or identify the presence of such
limitation in claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10), and Appellants' Specification
discloses a process similar to Bardman's process for preparing particulate
polymers in which only one stage of a multi-stage process is performed in
the presence of a non-formaldehyde reductant. Spec. 15-24. Appellants'
arguments therefore lack persuasive merit.
Appellants further argue that each of Chiou and Maeyama broadly
disclose numerous reducing agents, and contend that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a non-formaldehyde reductant from
these broad disclosures to solve the problem faced by Appellants. App. Br.
12, 13-14. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to utilize any of the reducing agents disclosed in Chiou and
Maeyama as suitable for use in preparing particulate polymers of the sizes
disclosed in the references for use in aqueous coating compositions,
including non-formaldehyde reducing agents. Chiou and Maeyama's
disclosures of a multitude of effective reducing agents does not render any
particular reducing agent less obvious, and Chiou and Maeyama are
available for all that they would have taught to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("That the '813 patent discloses a
multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular
formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed
composition is used for the identical purpose."); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442,
445 (CCP A 1971 ). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of
reversible error.
13
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-10 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bardman, the rejection of claims 1-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiou, and the rejection of
claims 1--4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeyama.
Rejections I and VI: Claim 6
Claim 6 requires the aqueous coating composition of claim 1 to
further comprise a clay thickener. The Examiner finds that Kawashima
discloses numerous experimental examples describing aqueous coating
compositions that include clay. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Maeyama
discloses aqueous coating compositions comprising inorganic fillers that
include clay. Ans. 20-21. Appellants argue that each of Kawashima and
Maeyama fail to indicate that the clay disclosed in both references is of a
type that could act as a thickener in the claimed aqueous coating
compositions. App. Br. 8, 14. In support of this argument, Appellants rely
on "Paint and Coating Testing Manual, 15th edition of Gardner-Sward
Handbook (2011, Chapter 33 page 360)." However, we find no indication
that this reference was entered into the record during prosecution of the
instant application, and it is improper for Appellants to rely on new evidence
submitted with the Appeal Brief. 37 CPR§ 41.33(d)(2). Thus, we do not
consider this reference.
Appellants do not dispute that Kawashima and Maeyama each
disclose aqueous coating compositions that include clay. App. Br. 8, 14. In
addition, Appellants do not establish any difference between the clay
disclosed in Kawashima and Maeyama and the clay recited in claim 6, or
establish the criticality of clay as a thickening agent in the claimed aqueous
14
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
coating compositions. Id. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578. One of
ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have had sufficient skill to
determine an appropriate thickener, such as clay as recited in claim 1, to
incorporate into an aqueous coating composition to achieve a desired level
of thickening. Appellants' arguments are therefore unpersuasive of
eversible error, and we accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawashima and Emmons,
evidenced by Prudent Practices, and sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeyama.
Rejection VII
In addressing this rejection of claim 2 over a combination of
Maeyama and Chiou, Appellants essentially present a subset of the
arguments that they provided in connection with the two rejections of base
claim 1 as unpatentable over each of Maeyama and Chiou. App. Br. 14--15.
Because we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 as unpatentable over each of Maeyama and Chiou, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeyama and Chiou.
Rejections IV and VIII
Appellants rely on contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
base claim, independent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, and argue
that the additional references relied upon by the Examiner in these rejections
fail to remedy the deficiencies of the primary references, Bardman and
Maeyama. App. Br. 11, 15. Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claim
15
Appeal2015-003326
Application 13/589,219
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bardman as evidenced by
Special Chem4Coatings, and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeyama as evidenced by Adachi.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, the decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
16