Ex Parte Goecke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2007

10459203 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEPHANIE GOECKE and GERD HUTHMACHER
____________

Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: October 31, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5 and 8-16. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Process for coating a surface of a substrate, comprising the steps of

Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

a) coating fiber material with a polymer dispersion based on at least one
polymer selected from the group consisting of polyurethanes,
polyester urethanes, polyesters and mixtures thereof to form coated
fibers,

b) blending the coated fiber material with the polymer dispersion to
form a coating material comprising

1) 5 to 40 wt. % of the polymer dispersion, having a solids
content of 25 to 90 wt. %, based on at least one polymer
selected from the group consisting of polyurethanes,
polyester urethanes, polyesters and mixtures thereof,

2) 0-35 wt. % of at least one cross-linking agent selected
from the group consisting of formaldehyde condensation
resins and polyisocyanates,

3) 2 to 20-wt. % of the coated fiber material,

4) 0 to 20 wt. % of solvent,

5) 5 to 35 wt. % of water, and optionally,

6) 0.5 to 10 wt. % of compositions selected from the group
consisting of coating additives, pigments, extenders and
mixture thereof;

c) applying the coating material onto the surface of the substrate and

d) curing the coating material to form a textured surface on the
substrate.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Koshi 4,761,312 Aug. 2, 1988
Miyazawa (as translated) JP 50133235 A Oct. 22, 1975
Yamamura 5,882,780 Mar.16, 1999
2
Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

Johnson 5,122,560 Jun. 16, 1992
Urai (as translated) JP 60132583 A Jul. 15, 1985

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for coating a
surface of a substrate comprising blending coated fiber material with a
polymer dispersion to form the coating, which is then applied to the
substrate and cured. The fiber material is coated with a polymer dispersion
based on polyurethanes, polyester urethanes, polyesters and mixtures
thereof. The polymer dispersion that is blended with the coated fiber
material comprises a polymer that may be the same as the polymer coated on
the fiber material.
Appealed claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koshi and JP’235 in view of
Yamamura. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in view of
Johnson. Also, claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koshi in view of Yamamura and JP’583.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of the Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The appealed claims embrace a process wherein polyester fibrous
material is coated with a polyester before blending the coated fibrous
material with an aqueous dispersion comprising a polyurethane. As
3
Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

explained by the Examiner and acknowledged by Appellants, Koshi, in the
background section, discloses that it was known in the art to form an
aqueous dispersion comprising a polyurethane and fibrous material. JP
’235, cited in the background section of Koshi, discloses that the fibrous
material may be polyester. Hence, Koshi evidences that it was known in the
art to form an aqueous dispersion comprising a polyurethane and polyester
fibrous material.
The question is whether it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to coat the known polyester fiber disclosed in JP
’235 with a polyester coating before blending it with the polyurethane
composition. We agree with the Examiner that Yamamura answers this
question in the affirmative. Yamamura expressly teaches that polyester
fibers may be coated with a polyester resin to enhance the hydrophilicity and
durability of the fiber in preparing an aqueous dispersion. Accordingly,
based on the combined teachings of JP ’235 and Yamamura, we find that it
would have been prima face obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
coat the fiber material of Appellants with a polyester before blending it with
a polyurethane dispersion.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Koshi teaches
away from the claimed invention by disclosing that the weather resistance of
a polyurethane coating is inadequate due to degradation by long-term
exposure to ultraviolet radiation. As explained by the Examiner, the claims
on appeal are not directed to coating an outside substrate and one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that interior coatings comprising
polyurethane dispersions have minimal exposure to degrading ultraviolet
radiation. Furthermore, Appellants have not demonstrated that the broad
4
Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

class of coatings embraced by the appealed claims do not experience the
same degradation to ultraviolet radiation discussed by Koshi, nor have
Appellants established that coating compositions within the scope of the
appealed claims are in any way unexpectingly superior to coatings fairly
taught by the combination of JP ’235 and Yamamura.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “ Yamamura
is directed to elastic polyester fibers and stretchable fiber articles and makes
no mention of coating compositions or the use of these fibers in coating
compositions” (pg. 8 of App. Br., 3 para.). Since Yamamura specifically
teaches that polyester fibers coated with a polyester resin have high
hydrophilicity and durability for forming an aqueous dispersion, it is not
necessary for a finding of obviousness that Yamamura also disclose the
formation of a coating composition. We are confident that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have appreciated that the high hydrophilicity and
durability disclosed by Yamamura would have made it obvious to coat the
polyester fibers of JP ’235 for improving the water dispersability of the
fibers in the preparation of the aqueous dispersion.
Appellants point out that “JP [’]235 is directed to acrylic resin
coating compositions that are clearly not encompassed by the claims” (App.
Br. 13, 2 para.). However, the background section of Koshi establishes that
it was known in the art to prepare fiber-containing aqueous dispersions of
acrylic resins and polyurethanes. We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to coat the polyester fibers with the
polyester of Yamamura before preparing the known blend of polyester fibers
and a polyurethane dispersion.
5
Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

As for claim 13,we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious, based on Johnson, to have used transparent pigments in the clear
top coating of Koshi for improving the durability and weatherability of the
coating.
We also concur with the Examiner that, based on JP’583, it would
have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the modified coating of Koshi to coat automobile seats. JP’583 evidences
that it was known in the art to use a textured urethane surface of natural
fibers for coating such a seat.
As a final point, as eluded to above, Appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results,
which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
applied prior art.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

tc/ls

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
LEGAL PATENT RECORDS CENTER
BARLEY MILL PLAZA 25/1128
4417 LANCASTER PIKE
WILMINGTON, DE 19805
6
Appeal 2007-0880
Application 10/459,203

7