11597227 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

Ex Parte Maziers

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 31, 2011

11597227 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/597,227 11/21/2006 Eric Maziers 31223.00151 (F-925) 3404 25264 7590 06/01/2011 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC PO BOX 674412 HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412 EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1747 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ERIC MAZIERS ____________________ Appeal 2010-003411 Application 11/597,227 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 8 through 27. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 28 has been indicated to be allowable. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-003411 Application 10/597,227 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method for the preparation of a molded article formed of an olefin polymer. Claim 8 is illustrative: 8. A method for the preparation of a molded article formed of an olefin polymer comprising: a) providing a molding feedstock comprising a particulate olefin polymer composition; b) providing a densification aid comprising a polyetherester; c) introducing said olefin polymer composition and said densification aid in an amount of no more than 1 weight percent based upon the amount of said olefin polymer into a mold cavity configured to provide a mold of a desired shape; d) heating said olefin polymer composition in the presence of said densification aid in said mold cavity to a temperature sufficient to provide a molten state to form a molded article configured to the shape of said mold cavity; e) thereafter cooling said molten polymer composition within the confines of said mold cavity to a temperature effective to solidify said olefin polymer composition within the confines of said mold cavity; and f) retrieving said solidified molded article from said mold cavity. Appellant appeals1 the following rejections: 1 We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the § 103 rejections based on Sheehan. (Ans. 3 and 4). Appeal 2010-003411 Application 10/597,227 3 1) Claims 8, 20-21, 23-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhary (US 6,362,270 B1, issued Mar. 26, 2002) and Coughlin (US 4,472,545, issued Sep. 18, 1984); 2) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhary, Coughlin, and Fatnes (US 2003/0078340 A1, published Apr. 24, 2003); 3) Claims 9, 12-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhary, Coughlin, and Chiu (US 5,550,193, issued Aug. 27, 1996); 4) Claims 9, 12-16, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhary, Coughlin, and further in view of Kolycheck (US 5,574,104, issued Nov. 12, 1996); and 5) Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhary, Coughlin, and Walter (US 4,988,740, issued Jan. 29, 1991) and Gross (US 6,486,295 B1, issued Nov. 26, 2002). With respect to rejection (1), Appellant’s arguments focus on features recited in claims 8 and 24. Accordingly, we address Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection with respect to these claims only. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). REJECTION (1) ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Chaudhary and Coughlin would have rendered obvious a method for preparing a molded Appeal 2010-003411 Application 10/597,227 4 article using a polyetherester as required by claims 8 and 24 within the meaning of § 103? We decide this issue in the negative. FACTUAL FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSION Appellant argues that there is no reason to combine Chaudhary and Coughlin to arrive at the inventions recited in claims 8 and 24. (App. Br. 5). We, however, agree with the Examiner’s reason stated on page 7 of the Answer for combining Chaudhary and Coughlin to arrive at the claimed inventions. Specifically, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to substitute the polyetherester plasticizer of Coughlin for a plasticizer in Chaudhary’s method of rotomolding in order to improve the appearance, flexibility and surface texture of the final article (Ans. 7). The Examiner’s proposed substitution of Coughlin’s polyetherester plasticizer for a plasticizer in Chaudhary’s rotomolding method is based on the selection and substitution of “known alternatives” (Ans. 7). Stated differently, substituting a known plasticizer such as Coughlin’s polyetherester plasticizer for a platicizer in Chaudhary’s method is nothing more than the predictable use of a prior art element (i.e., plasticizer) for its intended function (i.e., plasticizing a polymer composition during molding). KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is without persuasive merit. In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents for the first time specific arguments directed to why it would not have been obvious to combine Chaudhary and Coughlin to arrive at the claimed invention. (Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant, however, has not presented an explanation establishing a showing of good cause why these new arguments were not presented in the Appeal 2010-003411 Application 10/597,227 5 Appeal Brief. Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, any new argument not timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474-77 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Since Appellant has failed to provide such a showing, we will not consider the new arguments in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection (1). REJECTIONS (2) through (5) Appellant advances no additional argument and instead refers to the arguments made in rejection (1). (App. Br. 4-6). We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons explained above. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections (2) through (5). ORDER The Examiner’s decision is 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)(1). AFFIRMED bar