Ex Parte JUNG et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201814649597 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/649,597 06/04/2015 26285 7590 08/29/2018 K&L GA TES LLP-Pittsburgh 210 SIXTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15222-2613 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mathieu JUNG 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 160329PCTUS/BMS121093PCT- 5993 EXAMINER BUTCHER, ROBERT T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1768 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): USpatentmail@klgates.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATHIEU JUNG, THOMAS ECKEL, and SVEN HOBEIKA 1 (Applicant: Covestro Deutschland AG) Appeal2017---010789 Application 14/649,597 Technology Center 1700 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Covestro Deutschland AG. Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A composition comprising A) from 45.5 to 95.0 parts by weight of aromatic polycarbonate and/or aromatic polyester carbonate, B) from 1.0 to 15.0 parts by weight of rubber-modified graft polymer, C) from 1.0 to 9 .5 parts by weight of at least one cyclic phosphazene according to formula (X) (Xl, wherein k represents 1 or an integer from 1 to 10, wherein the trimer content (k=l) is from 60 to 98 mol%, based on component C, and wherein R is in each case identical or different and represents an amine radical; C1- to Cs-alkyl; C1- to Cs-alkoxy; Cs- to C6-cycloalkyl; C6- to C20-aryloxy; C7- to C12-aralkyl; a halogen radical; or an OH radical, D) from Oto 15.0 parts by weight of rubber-free vinyl (co)polymer or polyalkylene terephthalate, E) from 1.0 to 25.0 parts by weight of talc having a mean particle size dso of from 0.1 to 4.0 µm, F) from Oto 5.0 parts by weight of one or more additives, 2 Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 G) from 0.05 to 5.0 parts by weight of one or more antidripping agents, wherein all the parts by weight are normalized that the sum of the parts by weight of all the components A+B+C+D+E+F+G in the composition is 100. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Eckel Nakano Seidel Taschner US 6,740,695 Bl US 2004/0127734 Al US 2010/0144938 Al US 2010/0160508 Al THE REJECTIONS May 25, 2004 Jul. 1, 2004 Jun. 10,2010 Jun.24,2010 1. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7, 9, and 12-15 of copending Application No. 14/649,047 (Appeal No. 2018---000941) in view of Taschner. Ans. 2. 2. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 14/648,934 (Appeal No. 011224) in view of Taschner. Ans. 2. 3. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 14/649,610 (Appeal No. 2017---011225) in view of Taschner. Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 4. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground ofnon- statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 14/649,234 (Appeal No. 2017---010785) in view of Taschner. Ans. 3. 5. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 14/649,686 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,637,634, published May 2, 2017) in view of Taschner. 2 Ans. 3. 6. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground ofnonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-14 of Eckel in view of Taschner. Ans. 3. 7. Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-14 of Eckel in view of Taschner and Nakano. Ans. 4. 8. Claims 1-12, 14--15, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of Nakano and Taschner. Ans. 4--8. 9. Claim 16 is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of Nakano and Taschner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seidel. Ans. 8. 2 Because Application No. 14/649,686 is now U.S. Patent No. 9,637,634 to Jung, this provisional rejection is moot. 4 Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 ANALYSIS As a preliminary matter, on page 2 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that the instant application is related to the following applications: Appeal No. 2017---011225 2017---011224 2017---010785 2017---000941 Attorney Docket No. NOA filed 160323PCTUS/BMS121095PCTUS February 20, 2017 160316PCTUS/BMS121091PCTUS February 28, 2017 1603 24PCTUS/BMS121092PCTUS March 10, 2017 160347PCTUS/BMS121090PCTUS March 10, 2017 To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments for the separate patentability of any individual claim on appeal, we will address each separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant's claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner's rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm, with the following emphasis. Rejections 1-5 Rejections 1-5 are provisional rejections. On pages 5-6 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that they reserve the right to either file terminal disclaimers or 5 Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 abandon ( or any combination thereof) the applied applications. As such, as pointed out by the Examiner on page 11 of the Answer, these rejections remain, and we summarily affirm Rejections 1--4. With regard to provisional Rejection 5, this provisional rejection is moot (see footnote 2, supra). Rejections 6-9 Appellants argue Rejections 6, 7, 8, and 9 together as stated on page 5 of the Appeal Brief. In so doing, Appellants focus on the combination of Eckel in view of Nakano. Appeal Br. 6-8. Hence, our determinations with regard to this particular combination of references is dispositive for Rejections 6-9. Appellants' arguments are similar to the arguments addressed in our decision rendered in related Appeal No. 2017---010785. Hence, we refer to our analysis therein and affirm Rejections 6-9 for the same reasons presented in our decision in related Appeal No. 2017---010785 regarding the combination of Eckel in view of Nakano. DECISION Rejections 1--4 are affirmed. Rejection 5 is moot (see footnote 2, supra). Rejections 6-9 are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). 6 Appeal2017-010789 Application 14/649,597 ORDER AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation