Ex Parte Janssen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2010

10927941 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANNEGRET JANSSEN
____________

Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K PAK, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12, 30 and 32.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of making a laminate, said method comprising:
releasing a molten hot melt adhesive composition form a slot
nozzle in the form of a substantially continuous non-porous film, said slot
nozzle being free from contact with a substrate, said hot melt adhesive
composition having a complex viscosity of less than 500 poise at 1000
radians/second and less than 100 poise at 1 radian/second at 177ºС;
disposing the substantially continuous non-porous film between
a nip formed by a first roller and a second roller;
contacting a first nonporous substrate with the substantially
continuous non-porous film;
contacting a second substrate with the substantially continuous
non-porous film; and
nipping said first substrate, said substantially continuous non-
porous film and said second substrate to form a laminate that is free of
entrapped air.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Benecke 5,683,036 Nov. 4, 1997
Bayer, Jr. 5,747,107 May 5, 1998
Nico JP 59-127752 Jul. 23, 1984
Werenicz WO 96/25902 Aug. 29, 1996

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

2
Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making a
laminate by releasing a molten hot melt adhesive composition from a slot
nozzle in the form of a continuous non-porous film. The film is disposed
between a nip formed by first and second rollers wherein first and second
substrates are nipped with the film. The hot melt adhesive composition has
the recited complex viscosity at 177ºС.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) Claims 1-8, 10 and 11 over Mainstone in view of Benecke,
(b) Claim 9 over Mainstone in view of Benecke and Nico,
(c) Claim 12 over Mainstone in view of Benecke and Werenicz,
and
(d) Claims 30 and 32 over Mainstone in view of Benecke and
Bayer, Jr.(The Answer inadvertently did not list claim 32 in the
statement of the rejection, which claim was finally rejected and
is subject to this appeal).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s 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 § 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.
There is no dispute that Mainstone, like Appellant, discloses a method
of making a laminate by releasing a molten hot melt adhesive composition
from a slot nozzle in the form of a substantially continuous non-porous film
3
Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

wherein the slot nozzle is free from contact with a substrate. Like Appellant,
Mainstone disposes the film between first and second substrates. As
recognized by the Examiner, Mainstone does not expressly teach that the hot
melt adhesive composition has the recited complex viscosity at 177ºС.
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, “[t]he range of polymers and
process conditions is [sic, are] so broad in the extrusion coating process that
it is impossible to define output rates with extruder sizes in any kind of a
chart” (page 196, 1st col., 3rd para.). Mainstone also teaches that recent
commercial developments allow for the use of lower melt temperature
compositions (page 195, 3rd col., penultimate para.). Accordingly, since
Benecke evidences that it was known in the art to use hot-melt adhesives
having viscosities similar to the claimed values for extrusion onto a
substrate, we find no error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a hot melt
adhesive composition having the claimed viscosity in the laminating process
of Mainstone. We note that Appellant does not assert that the claimed hot
melt adhesive composition is novel.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mainstone does
not teach or suggest that polymers other than those having melt temperatures
in the range of 450ºF to 630ºF (i.e., 232ºС to 332ºС) could be or should be
used to form the laminates referred to therein”(App. Br. 11, last full
sentence). We agree with the Examiner that Mainstone teaches that typical
polymer melt temperatures which range from 450 to 630ºF are only
exemplary and that Mainstone provides a broader teaching that the range of
polymers that may be used is considerably greater. Moreover, the appealed
claims do not require that the hot melt adhesive composition have any
4
Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

particular melting point. The claims only require that the composition has a
complex viscosity within the recited ranges when measured at a temperature
of 177ºС.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Benecke
method, which fiberizes a coating material, is nothing like the method of
Mainstone which dispenses a film from the extruder. We are satisfied that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the hot
melt composition of Benecke can be used to form a film, as well as fibers, if
desired, without the use of the intermittent airflow.
Appellant also contends that “Mainstone does not teach or suggest
forming a substantially continuous nonporous film having a coating weight
of less than 10 g/m2”, as per claim 11(App. Br. 14, 1st para.). However,
Mainstone teaches that computerized control and monitoring of process
variables, such as film thickness, are applied to most modern extrusion
coating machines and that typical coating thicknesses are 0.002 to 0.004
inches (see page 196, 1st col., 2nd para.). Consequently, we concur with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to control and monitor the process variables and conditions to achieve the
desired thickness and weight of the extruded film. Appellant has established
no criticality for the claimed coating weight.
Regarding separately argued claim 12 which recites that the hot melt
adhesive composition comprises a thermoplastic polymer and tackifying
resin, Appellant maintains that the citation of Werenicz is inappropriate
since Werenicz discloses coating hot melt adhesive compositions by a slot
nozzle but not an extruder. However, the dictionary definition of “extrude,”
i.e., of forming a metal, plastic, etc. by forcing it through a dye, supports the
5
Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

Examiner’s position that Werenicz extrudes the composition through a slot
nozzle. Again, Appellant does not assert that extruding a hot melt adhesive
composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a tackifying resin is
novel, and Appellant has advanced no compelling rationale for why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using such a hot
melt adhesive composition in the laminating process of Mainstone.
As for separately argued claim 30, we agree with the Examiner that
Bayer, Jr. evidences the obviousness of contacting a release coated roller
with the continuous film before contacting the film with a first nonporous
substrate. Based on Bayer, Jr., we agree with the Examiner that such a
modification of the methodology of Mainstone would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. We find no merit in Appellant’s argument
that since Mainstone solves the problem of sticking by using a chill roll there
is no reason to modify the method of Mainstone with a release coated roller.
In our view, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
use either a chill roll or a release coated roller as alternatives to facilitate
release of a thermoplastic film.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases 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.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
tc
6
Appeal 2009-007062
Application 10/927,941

H.B. Fuller
1200 Willow Lake Blvd.
P.O. Box 64683
St. Paul MN, 55164-0683
7