Ex Parte Jariwala et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 201713719467 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/719,467 12/19/2012 Chetan P. Jariwala 70222US002 4396 32692 7590 11/14/2017 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PO BOX 33427 ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427 EXAMINER GOLDEN, CHINESSA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1788 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2017 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 CHET AN P. JARIWALA, WAYNE W. FAN, and YONGSHANG LU Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a polyurethane polymer and a synthetic leather comprising the polymer. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A polyurethane polymer comprising the reaction product of components comprising: Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 a fluorinated mono-functional alcohol comprising a perfluorinated (C4-C6)alkyl group, a perfluorinated (C4-C6)alkylene group, or both; a fluorinated aliphatic diol comprising a perfluorinated (C4-C6)alkyl group, a perfluorinated (C4-C6)alkylene group, or both; a hydrocarbon diol; and a diisocyanate; wherein: the total of the fluorinated aliphatic diol and the mono functional alcohol is less than 2 wt-% of the components forming the polyurethane polymer; and the total fluorine content is less than 1 wt-% of the polyurethane polymer. The References US 2003/0105263 A1 June 5, 2003 WO 00/40633 A1 July 13, 2000 Fan Krupers The Rejection Claims 1—11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fan in view of Krupers. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 4—10). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2—11, 16, and 17 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Fan discloses a polyurethane polymer which can comprise the reaction product of components including a fluorinated mono-functional alcohol having a perfluorinated C4 alkyl group (CF3(CF2)3S02N(CH3)CH2CH20H; 1112), a fluorinated aliphatic diol having a perfluorinated C4 alkyl group (H0CH2CF2CF20(CF2)40CF2CF2CH20H; 1105), a hydrocarbon diol (196) 2 Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 and a diisocyanate (1 85). The composition, when applied as a coating, “can successfully impart long-term durability, uniform oil- and water-repellency and soil- and stain-resistance” (1 8). Krupers discloses a urethane resin/isocyanate coating system comprising a functional fluorine compound having a hydroxyl group and a fluorohydrocarbon group (p. 4,1. 32 — p. 5,1. 11; col. 8,1. 6). The amount of functional fluorine compound in the composition, most preferably between 1 and 2 wt%, is just enough to cover the coating air surface with covalently bonded fluorine compound (p. 8,1. 26 — p. 29,1. 7). “By selecting suitable cross-linking conditions, it can be guaranteed that substantially all the functional fluorine compounds migrate to the coating air surface and then react there with the reactive groups of the cross-linkable resin [urethane/isocyanate system] or the cross-linking agent to form a covalent bond” (p. 9,11. 16—21). “[0]nly the surface properties are changed, so that only a small amount of the functional fluorine compound is necessary” (p. 9, 11. 33—35). “This small amount of functional fluorine compound binds selectively and covalently to the coating air surface, so that in one step an asymmetric coating is obtained which consists of a bulk material which hardly, if at all, changes in its properties and a thin fluorine compound- containing top layer which imparts a low surface energy, a low friction coefficient and water, oil, fat and dirt repellency to bulk material” (p. 9,1. 35 -p. 10,1. 6). The Appellants argue that “a skilled artisan would have recognized that most ‘fluorine-containing urethane compositions . . . rely on perfluoroalkyl groups ... to achieve the desired repellency and stainproofing properties.’ (Fan et al. 1 5 (emphasis added).) That is, a 3 Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 skilled artisan would not have been motivated by Fan et al. to remove the fluorine but, instead, would have recognized that the fluorochemicals provided the desired repellency and stainproofmg properties to the urethane compositions” (App. Br. 6). Fan discloses that “[i]n practice, all of the previously known fluorine- containing urethanes rely on perfluoroalkyl groups having an average of eight carbon atoms to achieve the desired repellency and stainproofmg properties” (1 5), not that more perfluoroalkyl groups provide better repellency and stainproofmg properties. The Appellants assert that “Krupers teach the use of a ‘functional fluorine compound capable of reacting with [a] cross-linkable resin, and/or cross-linking agent.’ (Krupers, page 4, lines 13-15). For example, Krupers teach ‘a suitable functional fluorine compound capable of reacting with a curable epoxy resin is a carboxylic acid-containing fluorohydrocarbon, and in particular a monocarboxylic acid-terminated perfluoropolyether compound’” {Id., page 5, lines 21-25)” (App. Br. 9). Krupers is not limited to the epoxy resin embodiment relied upon by the Appellants. Krupers indicates that the crosslinkable resin can be a urethane/isocyanate system with which functional fluorine compound hydroxyl groups react (p. 4,1. 32 — p. 5,1. 11). The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Fan and Krupers because Fan’s coating composition does not require high temperature curing but, rather, can be cured at 15—35 °C (1122, 33), whereas Krupers’ coating composition is cured “under such conditions that the functional fluorine compound migrates to the air side of 4 Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 the layer and then forms covalent bonds with the cross-linkable resin and/or the cross-linking agent” (p. 4,11. 24—27) (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had both an apparent reason or suggestion to modify the prior art and predictability or a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Krupers discloses that selecting suitable crosslinking conditions guarantees that substantially all functional fluorine compounds migrate to the coating air surface and then react there with the cross-linkable resin’s reactive groups to form a covalent bond and thereby provide the desirable surface properties of water, oil, fat and dirt repellency while hardly, if at all, changing the bulk material properties (p. 9,1. 35 — p. 10,1. 6). Achieving that benefit would have been an apparent reason or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to limit Fan’s total amount of fluorinated monofimctional alcohol and aliphatic diol to Krupers’ 0.1—5 wt%, most preferably 1 to 2 wt% (p. 8,1. 26 — p. 7) and permit them to migrate to the coating air surface before curing via reaction of their hydroxyl groups with the urethane/isocyanate system at either Fan’s 15—35 -C or a higher temperature.1 Such a person would have had predictability or a reasonable expectation of success in doing so due to the similarity of Fan’s and Krupers’ reactions, i.e., functional fluorine compounds’ hydroxyl groups reacting with isocyanates (Fan, 19; Krupers, p. 5,11. 2—11; p. 5,1. 35 — p. 6, 1. 4). 1 Krupers’ exemplified polyurethane coating curing temperatures are 50, 80 and 110 -C (p. 11,11. 16-20). 5 Appeal 2017-002875 Application 13/719,467 For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1—11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fan in view of Krupers is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation