Ex Parte Iyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

13883368 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017)

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.
13/883,368 05/03/2013 Suresh S. Iyer 67059US004 1081
32692 7590 11/24/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURESH S. IYER, RICHARD M. FLYNN,
RAMA V. RAJAGOPAL, ERIK D. OLSON,
KARL J. MANSKE, MOSES M. DAVID,
and JEAN A. KELLY
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,3681
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 5—26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moore2 in view of Invie3 and Dams.4
1 3M Company and its affiliate 3M Innovative Properties Company are
identified in the Appeal Brief as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Moore et al., US 2004/0092675 Al, published May 13, 2004 (“Moore”).
3 Invie et al., US 6,277,485 Bl, issued Aug. 21, 2001 (“Invie”).
4 Dams, WO 2009/061907 Al, published May 14, 2009 (“Dams”).
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).5
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of applying a curable
surface treatment composition to a surface of a substrate of an optical device
(see, e.g., claim 1). The inventors disclose that various fluorochemical
coating compositions have been used on substrates but the fluorochemical
materials tend to diffuse to the surface of the coating or film and become
depleted over time. Spec. 1:19—23. Furthermore, the inventors disclose that
the surface treatment of optical components, such as touch panels and
displays, has been challenging due to oily residues and smudges from finger
contact with the components. Id. 1:31—34. In view of this, the inventors
state a need exists for surface treatment processes that meet the performance
requirements for various optical devices. Id. 2:8—10.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.6 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A process comprising
(a) providing at least one optical device comprising at
least one substrate having at least one major surface, wherein
said substrate is an optical component selected from a touch
screen and a display,
(b) providing a curable surface treatment composition
comprising
(1) at least one fluorinated organosilane compound
comprising (i) a monovalent segment comprising a
polyfluoropolyether and (ii) a monovalent endgroup
5 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Specification (Spec.) filed May 3, 2013,
the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated Nov. 4, 2015, Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Apr. 1, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.)
dated Sept. 1, 2016.
6 Appeal Br. 6.
2
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
comprising at least one silyl moiety comprising at least
one group selected from hydrolyzable groups, hydroxyl,
and combinations thereof, and
(2) at least one fluorinated organosilane compound
comprising (i) a multivalent segment comprising a
polyfluoropolyether and (ii) at least two monovalent
endgroups, each said monovalent endgroup
independently comprising at least one silyl moiety
comprising at least one group selected from hydrolyzable
groups, hydroxyl, and combinations thereof; and
(3) an organic solvent comprising a
hydrofluoroether;
(c) applying said curable surface treatment composition
to at least a portion of at least one major surface of said
substrate; and
(d) curing said applied, curable surface treatment
composition to form a surface treatment.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Moore discloses a process in which a curable
surface treatment composition including at least one fluorinated
organosilane compound and an organic solvent is applied to a substrate and
cured. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner further finds the at least one fluorinated
organosilane compound comprises a multivalent polyfluoropolyether
segment and at least two monovalent end groups having at least one silyl
moiety with a hydrolysable group. Id. The Examiner also finds the organic
solvent comprises a hydrofluoroether. Id.
Moore discloses a composition comprising a condensation product of
at least one fluorochemical polyether silane compound having a
polyfluoropolyether segment and at least two hydrolysable silane groups per
molecule. Moore 2, 20-21. Moore discloses applying the coating to a
substrate and curing the coating and that the substrate can be various
3
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
materials, such as ceramics, glass, metal, polymeric materials, and other
materials. Id. Tflf 94, 99. Moore discloses that the coating renders a treated
surface less retentive of soil and more readily cleanable. Id. 195. Thus, the
disclosure of Moore supports the Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner finds Moore does not disclose that the substrate is an
optical component selected from a touch screen and display, or that the
coating composition further includes a fluorinated organosilane comprising a
monovalent segment, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds
Invie discloses a polyfluoropolyether composition that is used to provide a
surface of a display device with antisoiling properties. Id. Invie discloses
that display devices of electronic devices can be treated with antireflective
coatings and that such coatings can further include an antisoiling coating.
Invie 1:6—14, 2:23—29. Thus, the disclosure of Invie supports the
Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner further finds Dams discloses a composition including
monovalent polyfluoropolyether silane that permits high application
efficiency and improved structural integrity. Ans. 3. The disclosures of
Dams at page 2, lines 22—27 and page 34, lines 17—29, support these
findings. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to apply the
composition of Moore onto a display device substrate to provide such a
substrate with antisoiling properties, as disclosed by Invie, and to include the
monovalent polyfluoropolyether composition of Dams to permit high
application efficiency and improved structural integrity. Ans. 3.
Appellants contend Invie discloses display devices in the context of
anti-reflective film stacks and that because an anti-reflective film stack is
present in Invie one would be treating the outer surface of the anti-reflective
4
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
film stack, not a surface of a substrate (i.e., a display or touch screen).
Appeal Br. 4.
This argument is unpersuasive. As stated by the Examiner at page 4
of the Examiner’s Answer, Invie discloses that a substrate can have an anti-
reflective surface and an antisoiling coating thereon. The disclosure of Invie
at column 2, lines 24—30, supports this finding. As further indicated by the
Examiner at page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer, claim 1 uses comprising
language and permits a substrate to include other coatings, such as anti-
reflective films.
Moreover, the Examiner does not rely upon Invie for a disclosure of a
method to apply a coating to a substrate, such as via application of anti-
reflective films and an anti-soiling film. The Examiner finds Moore
discloses generic materials for a substrate, such as glass and plastic, but does
not disclose the substrate is an optical component, particularly a display or
touch screen, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner finds Invie
discloses coatings can be applied to the display devices to provide anti­
soiling properties and improve readability of the display. Id. at 3^4.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify
Moore in view of Invie: to provide a display device with anti-soiling
properties and to improve its readability. “[T]he test for combining
references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but
rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971).
Appellants further contend the anti-reflective film stacks of Invie are
preferably supported on a transparent flexible organic substrate and then
5
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
applied to a secondary substrate. Appeal Br. 4. We do not agree that the
portions of In vie cited by Appellants support their argument that an anti-
reflective film is applied to a first flexible substrate and then applied to a
secondary substrate. Regardless, Invie discloses a substrate can have an
anti-reflective surface and an antisoiling coating thereon and the Examiner
does not rely on Invie for its coating process, as stated above.
In addition, Appellants assert that Invie does not disclose an optical
component selected from a touch screen and a display “that itself is plastic.”
Appeal Br. 4. This argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 does not
require that the touch screen or display is plastic.
Appellants contend Moore and Dams do not overcome the
deficiencies Appellants argue with regard to Invie. Appeal Br. 5. However,
as set for the above, Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error
with respect to Invie or the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not argue claims 5—26 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 4—
5. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv),
claims 5—26 fall with claim 1.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 5—26 over Moore,
Invie, and Dams.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
6
Appeal 2017-003449
Application 13/883,368
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).
AFFIRMED
7