Ex Parte Mabey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 201512586472 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2015) 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. 12/586,472 09/22/2009 Michael John Mabey FR-LT-823 9277 41324 7590 04/20/2015 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY 209 HURON AVENUE, SUITE 8 PORT HURON, MI 48060 EXAMINER BOYLE, KARA BRADY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1766 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2015 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 MICHAEL JOHN MABEY and WILLIAM KISH ____________ Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 1 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1–16, 18, and 19. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real parties in interest are No-Burn Investments, L.L.C., and No-Burn, Inc. (Appeal Brief filed July 2, 2012, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 1). 2 Claims 20 and 21, the only other pending claims, have been allowed (see Form PTOL-326, Final Office Action entered February 15, 2012). Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 2 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a water-based latex paint that includes a low-temperature intumescent agent (e.g., GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite flake) as a fire retardant ingredient (Specification filed September 22, 2009, hereinafter “Spec.,” 4, ll. 3–5; 5, ll. 26–30). 3 According to the Appellants, “when heat is applied, the fire retardant paint of the invention may ‘foam up’ to form an intact, fire-resistive ‘char-barrier’ to protect the treated surface” and, “[a]s a result, fire is robbed of fuel and oxygen, generates less heat and smoke, and may in some circumstances extinguish itself” (id. at 4, ll. 17–19). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page CA-1 of the Claims Appendix attached to the Appeal Brief, as follows: 1. A composition of matter comprising a fire retardant coating formulation in a form of a water-based latex paint having a fire retardant ingredient with a low-temperature intumescent agent, which intumesces at a temperature about 180°C (356°F) or below. 3 On page 1 of the Appeal Brief, the Appellants identify two related appeals—namely, Appeal No. 2012-005405 (Application No. 11/343,099) and Appeal No. 2011-013133 (Application No. 11/654,486). Both of these applications are now abandoned pursuant to our decisions affirming the Examiner’s rejections of the claims. In addition, the Appeal Brief includes (as an appendix) a copy of the Board’s decision in Appeal No. 2011-005781 (Application 11/654,431), in which the Examiner’s rejections were reversed. That application was also abandoned following reopening of prosecution by the Examiner (see Notice of Abandonment entered May 6, 2013 in Application 11/654,431). Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 3 THE REJECTION Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mabey 4 and Armstrong. 5 DISCUSSION The Appellants provide their arguments under various headings identified by claim(s) (App. Br. 2–4). We address these arguments under the same headings below. Claims 1 & 18 The Appellants do not argue dependent claim 18 separately from independent claim 1 (id. at 2–3). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner found that Mabey describes an intumescent fire retardant water-based latex paint formulation (Ans. 2). The Examiner acknowledged that Mabey does “not expressly teach that the formulation includes an intumescent agent which intumesces at a temperature of . . . about 180 o C,” as required by claim 1 (id. at 3). The Examiner also found, however, that Armstrong teaches various formulations including coatings that contain GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite—the same material disclosed by the Appellants as an “intumescent agent” as recited in the claims—for the purpose of forming, upon heating, an insulating char layer that protects the substrate from heat and air (id. at 3–5, 7). Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art 4 United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0167131 A1, published July 27, 2006. 5 PCT International Publication WO 2006/005716 A2 published January 19, 2006. Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 4 would have been prompted to combine the teachings of Mabey and Armstrong in the manner claimed by the Appellants in order to produce a coating with improved fire retardance (id. at 5). The Appellants contend that Armstrong is non-analogous art (App. Br. 2). In addition, the Appellants argue that “Armstrong teaches away from a water-based latex paint to an organic-based epoxy adhesive” (id.). Furthermore, the Appellants contend that Mabey does not disclose a water- based paint that intumesces at about 180ºC or below, as required by claim 1, but instead “teaches away from low-temperature intumescence in a water- based latex paint to about 400ºF plus . . . .” (id. at 3). In support, the Appellants rely on a 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of William Kish executed on December 1, 2011 (Evidence App’x). The Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The nonanalogous art test considers the threshold question whether a prior art reference is “‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The two separate tests for determining whether a prior art reference is analogous are as follows: (i) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (ii) if the reference is not within the inventor’s field of endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id. at 658–659. Consistent with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 6–7), Armstrong, Mabey, and the subject application all relate to the general field of fire Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 5 retardant coatings (Armstrong 5, ll. 26–31; Mabey ¶¶ 2–5, 10; Spec. 1, ll. 6– 7). Indeed, both Armstrong and the subject application disclose the incorporation of the same GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite into the coatings for the same or similar purpose, which is to provide an insulating char layer or char barrier over various substrates (Armstrong 10, ll. 8–17; Spec. 4, ll. 17–19, and 5, ll. 5, ll. 26–30). Although the Appellants are correct that Armstrong and the subject application are classified (under the International Patent Classification) in different subclasses (App. Br. 2), that fact alone is not dispositive. Rather, it has long been held that the similarities and differences in structure and function carry far greater weight. In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (CCPA 1973). Even if we assume that Armstrong is not in the same field of endeavor as the current application, Armstrong is reasonably pertinent because, as discussed above, it discloses the use of GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite for the same or similar purpose as in the current application—i.e., to provide an insulating char layer or char barrier over a substrate. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prior art disclosing springs as part of a counterbalancing mechanism in a folding bed is reasonably pertinent to an application describing a gas spring used as part of a lift assist assembly in a claimed treadmill). Moreover, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve Mabey’s fire retardant coating would have considered Armstrong’s teachings concerning the beneficial effects of GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite, because “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 6 it, either in the same field or a different one.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (emphasis added). For these reasons, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Armstrong is analogous art. The Appellants’ argument that “Armstrong teaches away from a water-based latex paint to an organic-based epoxy adhesive” (App. Br. 2) lacks persuasive merit. Consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 8–9), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite to improve the fire retardance of a water-based coating as disclosed in Mabey in view of Armstrong’s disclosure of the actual mechanism by which the expandable graphite forms an insulating char layer on the substrate—a mechanism that does not depend on the nature of the solvent vehicle or the particular resin in the composition (Armstrong 10, ll. 8–26). As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 9), the Appellants’ teaching away argument fails at the outset because they do not identify any teaching in the prior art that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite in a water-based latex paint. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 3) that Mabey teaches away from a water-based paint that intumesces at about 180ºC or below, as required by claim 1, is similarly unpersuasive. The Kish Declaration does not include experimental evidence establishing that Mabey’s compositions necessarily intumesce at temperatures significantly higher than 180ºC (356ºF) or that the difference between claim 1 and the prior art gives rise to unexpected results. Nor do the Appellants identify any prior art teaching criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging intumescence of Mabey’s compositions at Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 7 temperatures of about 180ºC or below. As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 10), the intumescence temperature characteristic recited in claim 1 would necessarily follow from the suggestion in the prior art of adding Armstrong’s GRAFGUARD expandable graphite into Mabey’s water-based latex. For these reasons, and those set forth by the Examiner, we uphold the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 & 3 Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, specifies “an additional fire retardant ingredient that intumesces at about 204.4ºC (400ºF) or above” (Claims App’x at CA-1). Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, specifies that the composition “has a substantial fire retardant ingredient of or including an ammonium phosphate” (id.). The Appellants contend that Mabey “has no disclosure” of the additional limitations of claim 2 (App. Br. 3). Such a skeletal argument is not an argument in support of the separate patentability of a claim 1, particularly where, as here, the Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Mabey and Armstrong (Ans. 2–3) (determining obviousness based on combination of Mabey’s composition including ammonium phosphate and GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite disclosed in Armstrong). In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claim 4 The Appellants argue that “nothing in either reference discloses that, in a formulation as set forth in claim 4, intumescence should occur between 160ºC (320ºF) to 200ºC (392ºF)” (App. Br. 3). Again, such a skeletal argument is not an argument in support of the separate patentability of a Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 8 claim, and therefore, we need not further address it. Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1356–57. Claim 5 With respect to claim 5, which depends from claim 4, the Appellants argue that Armstrong does not teach some of the components recited in claim 4 (e.g., ammonium phosphate solids, pigment or filler, glass, ester alcohol, hydroxyalkylcellulosic, or a wetting agent) but instead “teaches toward epoxy, urethane and so forth type monomers and an amine hardener” (App. Br. 4). As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 12), the Appellants’ argument attacks the references individually without considering what the collective teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .”). Claims 6–9 The Appellants rely on the same arguments offered in support of claims 1–4 (App. Br. 3). Those arguments are unpersuasive or insufficient to warrant separate consideration for the reasons given above. Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 5 and recites in relevant part that “the low-temperature intumescent agent is or includes expandable graphite flake intercalated with acid, added to the base fire retardant latex paint formulation at a ratio between about 1:20 to 1:26 by weight” (Claims App’x CA-2). The Appellants contend that neither Mabey nor Armstrong discloses the ratio recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 4). That contention, however, is without merit for the reasons given by the Examiner (Ans. 13–14). Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 9 Claims 11–15 The Appellants argue that neither Mabey nor Armstrong discloses a minimum intumescence temperature of “about 140ºC,” as recited in claims 11–15 (App. Br. 4). As found by the Examiner (Ans. 14), however, Armstrong teaches that the GRAFGUARD ® expandable graphite has an onset temperature of 160ºC or 220ºC (Armstrong 10, ll. 17–18), which is above the minimum intumescence temperature recited in these claims. Claim 16 The Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 4 (App. Br. 4), which we found is not an argument in support of separate patentability and therefore need not be addressed further. Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 1, and specifies a “structural plastic foam” as a substrate (Claims App’x CA-2). The Appellants rely on the same arguments offered for claims 1 and 18 (App. Br. 4). In addition, the Appellants argue that “neither reference suggests a compound so particularly, advantageously combined on a foam plastic substrate as claimed by claim 19” (id.). The Appellants’ arguments offered for claim 1 are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. As for the additional argument based on the “foam plastic substrate” limitation, we incorporate the Examiner’s findings on page 14 of the Answer as our own. SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mabey and Armstrong is affirmed. Appeal 2013-002973 Application 12/586,472 10 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 cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation