Ex Parte LiuDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 19, 201613532838 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016) 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. 13/532,838 06/26/2012 Yue Liu FER-19020.01.01 2730 7609 7590 01/20/2016 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP 23755 Lorain Road - Suite 200 North Olmsted, OH 44070-2224 EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1731 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte YUE LIU 1 ________________ Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MARK NAGUMO, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Yue Liu (“Liu”) timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1–20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Ferro Corporation. (Appeal Brief, filed 24 July 2013 (“Br.”), 2.) 2 Office action mailed 27 December 2012 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”). Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 2 OPINION A. Introduction3 The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of polishing organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates using a dispersion of diatomaceous earth particles in water, the dispersion having a viscosity of less than about 200 cP,4 and being applied to the substrate by a polishing pad. According to the ʼ838 Specification, “the phrase ‘organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates’ refers to organic thermosetting or thermoplastic polymer materials used in the fabrication of eyeglass lenses and other optometric devices.” (Spec. 4, ¶ 12.) The Specification states that, “[i]ncluded within this definition are polycarbonate materials such as allyl diglycol carbonate polymers commonly known as CR-39 and other thermosetting and thermoplastic organic polymer resins used to fabricate ophthalmic lenses.” (Id.) The term “high index organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates” is defined as referring to “those organic polymer- based ophthalmic substrates that have an index of refraction greater than 1.498, which is the index of refraction for the allyl diglycol carbonate polymer known in the art as CR-39.” (Id.; emphasis added.) The 3 Application 13/532,838, Diatomaceous earth-containing slurry composition and method for polishing organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates using the same, filed 26 June 2012, as a division of 12/824,280, now abandoned, which was filed 28 June 2010, claiming the benefit of a provisional application filed 29 June 2009. We cite the Specification as “Spec.” 4 For comparison, the viscosity of water at 20°C is about 1 cP. E.g., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed., Absolute viscosity of water at 20°C, F-34 (1968). Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 3 Specification teaches that “lenses that are fabricated from 1.586 index of refraction polycarbonate substrates are thinner and lighter in weight than comparable lenses fabricated from CR-39, and further provide improved impact resistance.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 7.) Sole independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads: A method of polishing an organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrate comprising: dispersing a composition comprising particles of diatomaceous earth in water to form an aqueous polishing slurry having a viscosity of less than about 200 cP; disposing the aqueous polishing slurry between a polishing pad and the organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrate; and polishing the organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrate with the polishing pad and the aqueous polishing slurry to remove a surface portion of the organic polymer- based ophthalmic substrate. (Claims App., Br. 23; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5, 6: A. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Ferranti7 [ʼ999] and Henry.8 5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 30 August 2013 (“Ans.”). 6 The Examiner has withdrawn six rejections under § 103 in view of various combinations of Foster (U.S. Patent No. 5,137,541 (1992), Knapp (U.S. Patent No. 5,846,649 (1998)), and Henry (U.S. Patent No. 5,641,345 (1997)). (FR 4–12; Ans. 7, ll. 1–6.) 7 Steven A. Ferranti, Slurry composition and method for polishing organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates, U.S. Patent Application Publication Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 4 B. Claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 14 stand rejected under obviousness- type double patenting in view of claims 1–9 and 11 of Ferranti9 [ʼ044] combined with Henry. B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. We find that Liu raises arguments for patentability based only on limitations recited in sole independent claim 1. Accordingly, all claims stand or fall with claim 1. Briefly, the Examiner finds that Ferranti10 teaches that aqueous dispersions of abrasives, including “alumina, zirconia, silica, titania, or a combination thereof and water” are useful for polishing organic polymer- based ophthalmic substrates having an index of refraction n, where n is greater than 1.498, i.e., n > 1.498. (FR 12; Ans. 2.) The Examiner finds further that “Ferranti may not expressly disclose the use of diatomaceous earth” in the polishing composition. (FR 13; Ans. 3.) The Examiner finds that Henry teaches that abrasive materials such as diatomaceous earth, and mixtures with silicas, aluminum oxides, etc., are useful as polishing compounds for compact discs made from polycarbonate. (FR 13; Ans., para. 2006/0228999 A1 (2006); issued 13 November 2007, as U.S. Patent No. 7,294,044 B2. 8 Daniel J. Henry, Composition and method for refinishing compact disks, U.S. Patent No. 5,641,345 (1997). 9 Steven A. Ferranti, Slurry composition and method for polishing organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates, U.S. Patent 7,294,044 B2 (2007). 10 We refer to the published application and the issued patent as “Ferranti,” as the disclosures are for present purposes substantially the same. Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 5 bridging 3–4.) The Examiner also takes Official Notice that “diatomaceous earth comprises of a large portion of silica and a small portion of alumina.” (FR 14; Ans. 4.) In the Examiner‘s words, “[t]hus, once alumina and silica are desired for the polishing slurry of Ferranti, the addition of a component having both compounds would be well within the scope of a skilled artisan.” (FR 14; Ans. 4.) On this basis, the Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as obvious. Liu argues that because polycarbonate can be used for a myriad of non-ophthalmic purposes (including tamper resistant packaging, beverage containers, etc.), “polycarbonate is only an organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrate when used as such.” (Br. 13, ll. 28–29.) Moreover, Liu urges, because Henry is concerned only with polishing scratches out of compact disks, “which require less precision in surface quality in polishing in order to properly function [than ophthalmic substrates]” (id. at 14, ll. 15– 16), the use for ophthalmic substrates would not have been suggested. Furthermore, according to Liu, the chemical-mechanical polishing taught by Henry, with the use of a solvent for the polycarbonate, “is simply not used with ophthalmic substrates . . . . ” (Id. at l. 28.) Liu also argues that because Ferranti teaches a preference for calcined alumina (to maximize the removal rate), the routineer would have thought that diatomaceous earth, comprising mostly silica with some alumina and a very minor component of another oxide, would produce worse, not better results than alumina. (Br. 20, ll. 15–19.) In Liu’s view, the results reported in Table 1 of the Specification stand as evidence of “unexpected and improved results compared to higher amounts of alumina for polishing Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 6 ophthalmic substrates.” (Id. at 20–21.) In the Reply11, Liu urges that Henry is non-analogous art, and that “when evaluating Henry through the lens of the instant specification, the proper evaluation for determining analogousness should focus on the use of the substrate being polished (ophthalmic substrate), rather than only on the composition of the substrate (being made of polycarbonate).” (Reply 6, 2d para.) Liu’s arguments are not persuasive of harmful error in the prima facie case of obviousness. The use of similar materials for similar purposes based on properties disclosed as making the materials useful for those purposes is a classical instance of prima facie obviousness. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 265 (1850) (“the knob of clay was simply the substitution of one [known] material for another [wood].”) As for any “preferences” taught by Ferranti, it is well-settled that all of the teachings of a reference should be considered, and that the teachings are not limited to the preferred or most- preferred embodiments. See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The 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 in the . . . application . . . . [M]ere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.”) “For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Liu’s arguments regarding the intended use of the substrates have little weight when the teachings of similar abrasive materials by both Ferranti and Henry are considered. Henry’s teachings of abrasive 11 Reply Brief filed 28 October 2013 (“Reply”). Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 7 materials similar to those taught by Ferranti would have suggested that the additional materials, such as diatomaceous earth, would have been useful as abrasives in the processes taught by Ferranti for polishing ophthalmic plastic substrates. Liu’s arguments that the routineer would have limited Henry’s teachings to the organic-solvent assisted compositions, to the exclusion of other polishing compositions such as those described by Ferranti, are not supported by the weight of the evidence of record. Liu’s arguments regarding the necessity of solvents in the polishing compositions taught by Henry are misplaced because the rejection does not depend on the wholesale incorporation of those polishing compositions into the compositions taught by Ferranti. Rather, to the extent the Examiner may have made such arguments, we understand that the reason was to point out the scope of claims, which recite “aqueous compositions,” and which do not, on the present record, exclude organic solvents. In any event, the central point of the obviousness of using a composition that comprises silica and alumina—both materials disclosed by Ferranti as being useful for polishing ophthalmic substrates, remains undisturbed. We turn now to the evidence proffered as supporting unexpected results. The Examiner discounted the evidence (Table 1 from page 11 of the Specification) as not being commensurate with the range of amounts of abrasive encompassed by claim 1. (Ans. 10). It is well-settled that the evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate, reasonably, with the scope of the claimed subject matter. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (evidence of secondary considerations must be “commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claimed subject matter. . . . Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris Appeal 2014-000940 Application 13/532,838 8 needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims.”) (citation omitted). In the present case, claim 1 does not limit the absolute or relative amount of diatomaceous earth that must be present in the slurry, except perhaps by the requirement that the viscosity of the slurry be less than 200 cP. Particularly in view of the disclosure that “[t]he slurry compositions . . . can further comprise, in addition to particles of diatomaceous earth, other conventional abrasive particles utilized in polishing high index organic polymer-based ophthalmic substrates” (Spec. 5 ¶ 16), the claims cover methods of polishing ophthalmic substrates containing even minor amounts of diatomaceous earth. Liu has not explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have accepted a showing of 40% diatomaceous earth with 60% calcined aluminum oxide (Spec. 12, Table 2) as showing unexpected results for smaller amounts of diatomaceous earth, e.g., 1 weight percent or less diatomaceous earth in the presence of 60% alumina. Finally, because Liu has not offered any separate rebuttal to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the obviousness-double patenting rejection, which is over the claims of Ferranti, and is thus subject to substantially the same evidence and arguments, is summarily affirmed. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1–20 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation