Ex Parte Hochrein et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2013

11782973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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.
11/782,973 07/25/2007 Kilian Peter Hochrein FA/221A 8502
28596 7590 02/28/2013
W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
551 PAPER MILL ROAD
P. O. BOX 9206
NEWARK, DE 19714-9206
EXAMINER
JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KILIAN PETER HOCHREIN
and AMBROSIUS BAUER
____________

Appeal 2012-001038
Application 11/782,973
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An aerobic treatment system comprising
a) a biodegradable material to be aerobically treated; and
b) a cover oriented adjacent said biodegradable material,
which cover comprises a laminate of
a) a porous polymeric inner layer comprising porous
polytetrafluoroethylene having an average pore size of between 0.2 and
10µm and having on one side an oleophobic coating oriented to face said
biodegradable material, said layer adhered on its opposite side to

Appeal 2012-001038
Application 11/782,973

2
b) at least one woven, non-woven or knit water-repellent fabric
outer layer, in which the laminate has
i) an air permeability of between 10 and 100 m3/m2/hour at
200 Pa pressure difference,
ii) a water entry pressure greater than 20 kPa, an Ret less than
15 m2Pa/W.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Chikamori JP 06-047363 A Feb. 22, 1994
Schauz et al., “Optimization of Composting Process by the Use of a Water-
Impermeable, Microporous Membrane, Oxygen Sensor and Controlled
Aeration”, Mull and Abfall, No. 2, pp. 78-82 (1994).

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an aerobic treatment
system comprising a biodegradable material and a cover adjacent the
material. The cover comprises a laminate of a porous polymeric inner layer
of polytetrafluoroethylene and an oleophobic coating on the side facing the
biodegradable material. The opposite side of the inner layer has a woven,
non-woven or knit water-repellent fabric outer layer adhered thereto.
Appealed claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schauz in view of Chikamori.
Appellants do not separately argue any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete 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 Section 103 in view of the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
Appeal 2012-001038
Application 11/782,973

3
set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Schauz, like Appellants, discloses a cover for
an aerobic treatment system comprising a porous polymeric inner layer and
fabric layers. As recognized by the Examiner, the porous polymeric inner
layer of Schauz comprises polyurethane rather than the polytetrafluoro-
ethylene presently claimed. However, Chikamori discloses a porous
polymeric layer for covering an aerobic treatment system wherein the
polymeric layer may be polyurethane or polytetrafluoroethylene, with
polytetrafluoroethylene being preferred. Accordingly, we fully concur with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to substitute the preferred polytetrafluoroethylene of Chikamori for the
polyurethane layer of Schauz with the reasonable expectation of obtaining
an equivalent, water proof air-permeable membrane. While Appellants
emphasize that Schauz does not teach or suggest a cover comprising porous
polytetrafluoroethylene, Appellants have advanced no reason for why it
would have been nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute
the polytetrafluoroethylene of Chikamori for the polyurethane of Schauz.
Consequently, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s reasonable
position.
Appellants also maintain that Chikamori provides no teachings or
suggestion of an oleophobic coating oriented to face the biodegradable
material. However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Chikamori teaches a
hydrophilic polymer coating on the porous film for the purpose of
preventing degradation from oil contact, and we agree with the Examiner
Appeal 2012-001038
Application 11/782,973

4
that such a hydrophilic coating would have reasonably suggested the use of
an oleophobic coating. Manifestly, a hydrophilic material is oleophobic.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam