Ex Parte Holeschovsky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2010

11037269 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ULRICH B. HOLESCHOVSKY
____________________

Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Decided: January 14, 2010
____________________

Before: CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
7, 8, and 10-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

2
The invention is directed to a process for preparing a composite
structure having a fabric or fiber backing partially penetrated and/or
embedded by a urethane froth prior to curing into a urethane foam (Spec. 1,
ll. 8-18). The composite structure is useful as an underlay for flooring
applications or as a sound absorbing layer (Spec. 5, ll. 16-24). Claim 7 and
11-13, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A process for the production of a composite structure
comprising:
A) applying a reactive urethane froth to an open weave, natural
or synthetic fabric or backing having fibers, wherein the
reactive urethane froth comprises:
(1) at least one polyisocyanate component,
(2) at least one isocyanate-reactive component,
(3) at least one non-Newtonian thickener, and
(4) at least one catalyst;
B) passing the fabric or backing coated with the reactive
urethane froth under a doctoring device such that the urethane
froth at least partially penetrates and/or embeds the fibers of the
fabric or backing; and
C) curing the urethane froth.

11. The process of Claim 7, wherein (2) said isocyanate-
reactive component of the urethane froth comprises one or more
polyoxyalkylene polyols having an intrinsic unsaturation of less
than about 0.015 meq/g.

12. The process of Claim 7, wherein (3) said non-Newtonian
thickener is selected from the group consisting of precipitated
calcium carbonate, finely divided clay, precipitated silica,
fumed silica, vegetable gum, modified cellulose, polyacrylic
acid polymers, copolymers with acrylates and other unsaturated
monomers, and mixtures thereof.

Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

3
13. The process of Claim 7, wherein (3) said non-Newtonian
thickener is selected from the group consisting of inorganic
particulates having BET surface areas greater than 10 m2/g,
organic thickeners and mixtures thereof.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
First Named Inventor Patent Number Issue Date
Terry
Hutton
Haubennestel
Holeschovsky
US 3,700,515
US 3,867,325
US 4,857,111
US 6,171,678 B1
Oct. 24, 1972
Feb. 18, 1975
Aug. 15, 1989
Jan. 9, 2001
Thomas F. Irvine, Jr. & Massimo Capobianchi, Non-Newtonian Flows, in
The Handbook of Fluid Dynamics, 22-1 to 22-3 (Richard W. Johnson ed.,
1998) (hereinafter “the Handbook”).

Claims 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Terry as evidenced by the Handbook.1 Claim 11 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Terry as evidenced
by the Handbook and further in view of Holeschovsky.2 Claim 12 stands

1 The Examiner states the rejection as over Terry alone, but further relies
upon the Handbook in support of anticipation (Final Rej. 6; Ans. 8). As
evidenced by Appellant’s arguments, the nature of the Examiner’s reliance
upon the Handbook is understood by Appellant and not objected to (Reply
Br. 2). Therefore, we treat the anticipation rejection as over Terry as
evidenced by the Handbook.

2 For all the obviousness rejections, the Examiner relies upon Terry and the
Handbook, in the same capacity as in the anticipation rejection and
Appellant’s arguments with regard to Terry and the Handbook parallel those
made against the anticipation rejection. Therefore, we also treat the
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

4
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Terry as evidenced
by the Handbook and further in view of Hutton. Claim 13 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Terry as evidenced by the
Handbook and further in view of Haubennestel.
We select independent claim 7 to represent the group of claims 7, 8,
and 10. We address the rejections of claims 11-13 separately.
II. ANTICIPATION – CLAIM 7
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant contends that Terry’s teaching of using asbestos, zinc
oxide, clay, feldspar or the like constitute a teaching of “conventional fillers”
which is distinguishable from the non-Newtonian thickeners claimed and
described in Appellant’s Specification (Br. 5). Appellant further contends
that Terry’s use of the term thixotropic is a misnomer because, in disclosing
a thixotropic composition having an initial Brookfield viscosity between
about 30,000 and 100,000, Terry in fact teaches a composition with a
dynamic viscosity (Reply Br. 2). According to Appellant, the Handbook
referenced by the Examiner teaches that a composition with a dynamic
viscosity is a Newtonian fluid (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner contends that the Appellant’s definition of “non-
Newtonian thickener” encompasses the thixotropic (i.e., non-Newtonian)
fillers disclosed in Terry and that the claimed thickener is not limited to the
specific example thickeners disclosed in Appellant’s Specification (Ans. 8).
A first issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and
the Examiner is: has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in

obviousness rejection as over Terry as evidenced by the Handbook in
addition to the Examiner further stated references.
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

5
rejecting claim 7 because Terry does not teach a non-Newtonian thickener as
recited in claim 7?
B. FACTUAL FINDINGS
Appellant’s Specification teaches a “non-Newtonian thickener” may
be “any thickener which exhibits a substantial inverse relationship between
shear and viscosity” and includes precipitated calcium carbonate, finely
divided clays and precipitated and fumed silicas as examples (Spec. 10,
ll. 1-10).
Terry teaches that “[a] suitable filler must be added in amounts
sufficient to render the overall composition thixotropic to the desired degree
but less than that which will cause the composition to become paste-like”
and includes asbestos, zinc oxide, clay, and feldspar, alone, or mixed with
silica or calcium carbonate (Terry, col. 3, l. 75 to col. 4, l. 13).
Terry teaches that it is desirable to prevent migration of the
composition into exposed yarn while permitting it to be spread by means of
a doctor knife (Terry, col. 3, ll. 3-7). Terry states that migration cannot be
prevented merely by increasing the viscosity of the composition, but that it is
necessary that the composition be thixotropic (Terry, col. 3, ll. 14-17).
Terry teaches that the thixotropic composition must have an initial
Brookfield viscosity between about 30,000 and about 100,000 cps as
measured on a Brookfield Viscometer, #7 spindle (Terry, col. 3, ll. 3-
5)(emphasis added).
The Handbook teaches that a thixotropic (or pseudoplastic time-
dependent) fluid is a common class of non-Newtonian fluids. The
Handbook teaches that an important characteristic of a Newtonian fluid is
that the dynamic viscosity is independent of the shear rate and that non-
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

6
Newtonian fluids do not obey this property. However, it does not state that a
composition having a dynamic viscosity is necessarily a Newtonian fluid.
(Handbook, at 22-2.)
C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
When a claimed product appears to be substantially identical to a
product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the Applicant to prove
that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess
characteristics or properties attributed to the claimed product. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
D. ANALYSIS
The Handbook makes clear that thixotropic compositions are a type of
non-Newtonian composition, and this fact appears to be undisputed by
Appellant (see Reply Br. 2). Rather, Appellant asserts that despite clearly
disclosing a thixotropic composition, the composition taught by Terry, in
fact, uses Newtonian fillers. However, we find Appellant’s evidence to be
unpersuasive. To the contrary, the evidence weighs in favor of the
Examiner’s contrary reasoning, namely, that the composition taught by
Terry is thixotropic because of the addition of the filler. Terry specifically
states that the filler must be added in amounts sufficient to render the overall
composition thixotropic. Because it is the filler that renders the composition
thixotropic (non-Newtonian), Terry’s filler is necessarily a non-Newtonian
filler.
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

7
We consider the disclosure of an initial Brookfield viscosity to be
insufficient evidence to conclude that the composition taught by Terry is not
Newtonian, i.e., not thixotropic. Appellant’s own definition of a non-
Newtonian composition dictates that the composition would have a first or
initial viscosity when no shear is applied and a lower viscosity when shear is
applied to the material. Thus, the disclosure of a measurable initial
viscosity, which is presumably measured at a particular shear, is not
sufficient evidence to conclude that the composition is necessarily
Newtonian.
Appellant points to equation 22.1 on page 22.2 of the Handbook to
support the assertion that dynamic viscosities are characteristic of
Newtonian fluids. While the Handbook teaches that Newtonian fluids have
a linear relationship between shear stress and dynamic viscosity, there is
nothing in the teachings of this equation to suggest that the disclosure of an
initial viscosity necessarily means that the composition is Newtonian.
Without further evidence, we are not willing to ignore the repeated
teachings in Terry which disclose a desire for a thixotropic (i.e., non-
Newtonian) composition.
III. CLAIM 11 – TERRY IN VIEW OF HOLESCHOVSKY
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not expect and could not predict the effect of substituting the low
unsaturation polyols taught by Holeschovsky for the polyols in the process
taught by Terry. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
expected the degree of improved tensile strength and tear strength shown in
Appellant’s Specification (comparing Example 1 and Comparative Example
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

8
1) from the slight increase in tensile strength and tear strength taught by
Holeschovsky (Table 4, Examples C6 and 13). Also, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have expected the decrease in elongation shown in
Example 1 of Appellant’s Specification from the increase in elongation
taught by Table 1 of Holeschovsky. (Br. 9-10.)
The Examiner responds that it is the improvement in tensile strength
and tear strength taught by Holeschovsky which provides the motivation to
combine the low unsaturated polyols of Holeschovsky to the process taught
by Terry. The Examiner also indicates that the fact that Appellant
recognizes other advantages naturally flowing from the combination cannot
be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be
obvious. (Ans. 9.)
A second issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant
and the Examiner is: has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting claim 11 by failing to establish, prima facie, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in
using the low unsaturated polyols of Holeschovsky in the process taught by
Terry?
B. FACTUAL FINDINGS
It is undisputed that Holeschovsky teaches an increase in tensile
strength and tear strength (Br. 9; Ans. 9).
The data found in Table 2 on page 16 of Appellant’s Specification
shows improved tensile strength and tear strength and reduced elongation in
a composition of the present invention (Example 1) containing low
unsaturated polyols (Polyol A) and a non-Newtonian thickener (Aerosil 200)
over a comparative composition (Comparative Example 1) containing low
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

9
unsaturated polyols (Polyol A) but without the non-Newtonian thickener
(Aerosil 200) (Spec. 14, Table 1 and ll. 4-6; Spec. 16, ll. 4-6 and Table 2).
It is established above that Terry teaches a process using a non-
Newtonian thickener (Terry, col. 3, l. 75 to col. 4, l. 13). Holeschovsky also
teaches the use of finely divided clays (limestone, dolomite) and precipitated
calcium carbonate as fillers, which are example non-Newtonian thickeners
identified by Appellant’s Specification (Holeschovsky, col. 5, ll. 9-16; Spec.
10, ll. 1-10).
The data found in column 10, Table 4 of Holeschovsky shows
improved tensile strength and tear strength and improved elongation for the
composition of Example 13 containing low unsaturated polyols (Polyol H)
and calcium carbonate (a non-Newtonian thickener) over a comparative
Example C6 containing calcium carbonate (a non-Newtonian thickener) but
without the low unsaturated polyols (polyol H) (Holeschovsky, col. 5, ll. 9-
6; col. 9, ll. 49-63; col. 10, Table 4).
C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
One way to establish a prima facie case of obviousness is to show
that “the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
that [the claimed process] should be carried out and would have a reasonable
likelihood of success viewed in light of the prior art. Both the suggestion and
the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the
applicant’s disclosure.” In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (citations omitted). “‘[T]he expectation of success need only be
reasonable, not absolute.’” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
480 F.3d 1348, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

10
“[E]ven though applicant’s modification results in great improvement
and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification
was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art, unless the claimed
ranges 'produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and
not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.'” See In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456
(CCPA 1955)).
D. ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that the improvements to tensile strength
and tear strength due to the inclusion of low unsaturated polyols taught by
Holeschovsky would be sufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation of
similar success when the same low unsaturated polyols were added to the
process taught by Terry. Thus, the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness.
The burden thus shifted to Appellant to show that the results of adding
low unsaturated polyols to the invention of Terry would provide superior
and unexpected results over a prior art composition (Terry) having no such
low unsaturated polyols. The data provided in Appellant’s Specification is
not sufficient evidence to prove unexpected results. Appellant’s data shows
only superior results due to the addition of a non-Newtonian thickener over a
composition without such a thickener. Appellant’s data does not speak to
any improvement due to the addition of low unsaturated polyols, since both
the comparative example and the present invention example both include a
low unsaturated polyol. Moreover, the data provided by Holeschovsky
explicitly demonstrates that an improvement in tensile strength and tear
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

11
strength due to the inclusion of low unsaturated polyols would have been a
result well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Likewise, it is of no moment that Appellant’s data shows adding a
non-Newtonian thickener to reduce elongation while Holeschovsky’s data
shows adding low unsaturated polyols to improve elongation. Appellant’s
data cannot be used to show that a reduction in elongation would have been
unexpected by the inclusion of low unsaturated polyols in the process taught
by Terry, since both the comparative example and the present invention
example both include a low unsaturated polyols.
IV. CLAIM 12 – TERRY IN VIEW OF HUTTON
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
The Examiner relies on the teachings of Hutton to show the advantage
of using precipitated calcium carbonate as the particular type of calcium
carbonate taught by Terry, specifically, an improvement in the physical
stress/strain of the carpet taught by Terry (Ans. 10).
Appellant contends that (a) there is no motivation to use a filler
suitable for use in a PVC product taught by Hutton in the polyurethane
carpet product taught by Terry; (b) Hutton teaches away from using
precipitated calcium carbonate by recognizing that precipitated calcium
carbonate is more expensive than other fillers; (c) Terry also teaches away
from using calcium carbonate alone due to the higher amount of calcium
carbonate needed to achieve a desirable thixotropy, as evidenced by
Examples 2 and 3 of Terry; (d) the advantage of a smoother and higher gloss
finish are not desirable to a carpet backing because a particular finish is not
necessary nor is the advantage to impact strength desirable to the carpet
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

12
backing of Terry; and (e) the teachings of Hutton would merely instruct one
of ordinary skill in the art to use PVC polymers (Br. 11-13).
The Examiner responds that claim 12 does not require the use of
calcium carbonate alone and that the teachings of Terry include the use of
calcium carbonate when incorporated with other fillers (Ans. 11).
A third issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and
the Examiner is: has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred by
failing to provide a sufficient reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the precipitated calcium carbonate taught by Hutton as the calcium
carbonate taught by Terry considering the teachings of the advantages and
disadvantages taught by the references?
B. FACTUAL FINDINGS
Appellant’s Specification teaches the use of calcium carbonate as both
a non-Newtonian thickener and a filler (Spec. 10, ll. 1-10; 13, l. 23).
Terry teaches that, while the use of calcium carbonate alone is
undesired since high concentrations are needed to attain a desired level of
thixotropy, calcium carbonate can be mixed with asbestos, zinc oxide, clay,
feldspar or the like and used in the process taught by Terry (Terry, col. 4,
ll. 7-13).
Example 1 of Terry uses 15 pounds of asbestos and 100 pounds of
calcium carbonate, among other ingredients, and produces a sufficiently
thixotropic carpet backing. Comparative Examples 2 and 3 do not produce a
sufficiently thixotropic carpet backing. Comparative Example 2 uses no
asbestos and 100 pounds of calcium carbonate. Comparative Example 3
also uses 15 pounds of asbestos and 100 pounds of calcium carbonate but
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

13
used a different temperature which caused a severe drop in viscosity.
(Terry, col. 5, ll. 44-47; col. 6, ll. 1-3, 13-18, 31-33, 52-54, and 68-75).
The background section of Hutton teaches that precipitated calcium
carbonate fillers are generally more expensive than ground natural chalks or
limestone but have in the finished article improved physical properties
compared to those achieved using larger particle size filler materials. These
improved physical properties include a smoother finish, a higher gloss, a
reduced tendency to white scratch when subjected to an abrasive, and
improved impact strength. (Hutton, col. 1, ll. 36-51.) Hutton teaches the
use of calcium carbonate as a preferred filler (Hutton, col. 2, ll. 3-11).
C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably
suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred
embodiments. Merck & Co v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments,
must be considered.”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA
1976)). “[T]he question is whether there is something in the prior art as a
whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination,” not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to
suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

14
A reference “teaches away” when it suggests that the developments
flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the
Appellant’s invention. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching
away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi,
440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971); Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201 (explaining
“[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed”).
D. ANALYSIS
Neither the teachings of Terry nor the teachings of Hutton teaches
away or discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from the use of
precipitated calcium carbonate in the process taught by Terry. To the
contrary, Terry teaches that calcium carbonate is a preferred filler when used
with another filler. Further, Hutton provides evidence that one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that precipitated calcium carbonate would
predictably improve the process of Terry in the same way it improves the
process of Hutton due to its smaller particle size.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 12 uses open “comprising”
language which does not restrict the use of calcium carbonate as the only
filler. Thus, if the precipitated calcium carbonate is used as the calcium
carbonate taught by Terry, the modified composition would not fall outside
the scope of the claimed invention merely because asbestos is also used as a
filler.
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

15
The Examiner finds that Hutton’s broad teaching of improved
physical properties in a resinous material via the smaller particle size of
precipitated calcium carbonate would have served as motivation to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the precipitated calcium
carbonate as the form of calcium carbonate in the method taught by Terry
(Ans. 10). Appellant’s assertion that the particular improvements would not
be desirable for a carpet backing is speculative and fails to adequately rebut
the Examiner’s reasoning. The fact of the matter is that the use of
precipitated calcium carbonate filler, as shown by the prior art, had known
and predictable effects on resinous materials due to its smaller particle size.
Use of the filler for those known and predictable effects would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Finally, any additional expense incurred by using precipitated calcium
carbonate would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from making
the substitution proposed by the Examiner. “That a given combination
would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that
persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some
technological incompatibility.” In re Farenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (reference does not teach away from addition of inhibitor to an
Angiotensin I standard solution or composition, where reference indicated
that adding inhibitor “can be costly”).
V. CLAIM 13 – TERRY IN VIEW OF HAUBENNESTEL
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art reading
Haubennestel would not have been motivated to use highly dispersed silica
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

16
because Haubennestel teaches that dispersed silica in the absence of
hydroxyfunctional carboxamide is not effective (Br. 13-14).
The Examiner responds that Haubennestel has a broad teaching that
silica having the claimed BET surface area is known in the art for achieving
thixotropy and that claim 13 does not exclude the use of hydroxyfunctional
carboxamide in addition to the dispersed silica (Ans. 11-12).
A fourth issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and
the Examiner is: has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the dispersed
silica having the BET surface area recited in claim 13 as a filler in the
process taught by Terry because Haubennestel does not teach the use of
dispersed silica without the use of hydroxyfunctional carboxamide?
B. FACTUAL FINDINGS
Terry teaches that, while the use of silica alone is undesired since high
concentrations are needed to attain a desired level of thixotropy, silica can be
mixed with asbestos, zinc oxide, clay, feldspar or the like and used in the
process taught by Terry (Terry, col. 4, ll. 7-13).
The background section of Haubennestel broadly teaches the use of
highly dispersed silica having a BET surface area of about 50 to 400 m2/g is
well known to those of ordinary skill in the art (Haubennestel, col. 1, ll. 15-
25). Yet, in the invention of Haubennestel, the desired thixotropy is
achieved using hydroxyfunctional polycarboxylic acid amides in addition to
the dispersed silica (Haubennestel, col. 3, ll. 19-56; col. 11, ll. 10-22).
C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The principles of law presented above with respect to claim 12 are
equally relevant to deciding the present issue with respect to claim 13.
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

17
D. ANALYSIS
For the cogent reasoning provided by the Examiner, we find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive (Ans. 11-12). Haubennestel broadly
teaches that the use of silica as claimed was well known in the art without
any qualifications. Further, even if the teaching of Haubennestel was limited
to using carboxamide in combination with the highly dispersed silica,
Haubennestel does not teach away from the use of dispersed silica as
claimed. Claim 13 uses open “comprising” language and, as such, does not
exclude the use of fillers in addition to the recited dispersed silica.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of: claims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Terry as evidenced by the Handbook; claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Terry as evidenced by the Handbook and further in view
of Holeschovsky; claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Terry as evidenced by the Handbook and further in view of Hutton; and
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Terry as evidenced
by the Handbook and further in view of Haubennestel.
VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam
Appeal 2009-008135
Application 11/037,269

18

BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC
100 BAYER ROAD
PITTSBURGH, PA 15205