Ex Parte Modha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2010

10733155 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHANTILAL HIRJI MODHA, MARY ELIZABETH KISTER,
and KC NGUYEN
____________

Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 26, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 77-91, 94-109, and
112-115. Claim 77 is illustrative:
77. A method for forming an elastomeric glove, the
method comprising:
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

2
dipping a hand-shaped former into at least one bath
containing an elastomeric material to form a substrate body, the
substrate body having an inner surface and an outer surface that
define a hand-shaped cavity, the inner surface being positioned
adjacent to the hand-shaped former;
applying a hydrogel coating to the outer surface of the
substrate body while the inner surface of the substrate body
remains adjacent to the hand-shaped former, wherein the
hydrogel coating has a thickness of from about 0.1 to about 20
micrometers;
applying a lubricant coating to the hydrogel-coated
substrate body while the inner surface of the substrate body
remains adjacent to the hand-shaped former, wherein the
lubricant coating comprises a silicone emulsion;
chlorinating the glove; and
thereafter, stripping the glove from the hand-shaped
former without the use of an antiblocking powder, wherein the
glove is inverted so that the outer surface of the substrate body
applied with the hydrogel coating is configured to face a
user's hand when inserted into the hand-shaped cavity.
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:

Agostinelli 3,740,262 Jun. 19, 1973
Chen 5,284,607 Feb. 8, 1994
Holguin 2003/0100694 A1 May 29, 2003
Teoh WO 02/32475 A2 Apr. 25, 2002

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for forming an
elastomeric glove. The method entails dipping a hand-shaped former into a
bath of the elastomeric material, applying a hydrogel coating to the outer
surface of the formed elastomer, applying a lubricant of a silicone emulsion
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

3
to the hydrogel coating, chlorinating the glove, and then stripping the formed
glove from the former such that the surfaces of the glove are inverted.
Appealed claims 77-84, 88-91, 94-102, 106-109 and 112-115 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teoh in view
of Chen and Agostinelli. Claims 85-87 and 103-105 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references further in view of Holguin.
Independent claims 77 and 98 are argued together as a group. We
focus on claim 77 as representative. Regarding the dependent claims on
appeal, Appellants submit that “it is believed that some or all of these claims
may possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the
patentability of the independent claim” (Prin. Br. 18, third para.). However,
Appellants have not presented a separate, substantive argument for a
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 77.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Teoh, like Appellants, discloses a method for
forming an elastomeric glove comprising dipping a hand-shaped former into
a bath containing an elastomeric material to form a substrate body, applying
a hydrogel coating to the outer surface of the substrate body, applying a
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

4
lubricant coating to the hydrogel-coated substrate body, and stripping the
glove from the hand-shaped former such that the glove is inverted. While
Teoh teaches that the lubricant coating may be a physiologically acceptable
surfactant, such as a solution of silicone, the reference does not expressly
teach that the surfactant is the claimed silicone emulsion. Also, although
Teoh evidences that it was known in the art to chlorinate a glove of synthetic
rubber, the process of Teoh avoids such chlorination. However, we totally
concur with the Examiner that these argued differences over Teoh would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
We agree with the Examiner that Chen evidences the obviousness of
applying a lubricant to an elastomeric glove in the form of a silicone
emulsion, and that such emulsions are a convenient way to apply a silicone
lubricant to a surface. While Appellants emphasize the differences between
Teoh and Chen with respect to forming an elastomeric glove, Appellants’
argument misses the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. In particular,
Appellants present no argument for why it would have been nonobvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the silicone coating of Teoh in the
form of a solution or an emulsion. We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have considered Teoh’s disclosure of applying a
lubricating surfactant to the hydrogel coating as being limited to a silicone
solution, to the exclusion of a silicone emulsion or other known lubricating
compositions.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Teoh’s
avoidance of a chlorinating step would have rendered the claimed
chlorinating step nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To be sure,
Teoh discusses the disadvantages of chlorinating an elastomeric glove to
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

5
reduce its tackiness, namely, the chlorination “is both expensive and can
potentially have deleterious effects on the properties of the finished glove”
(page 2, first para.). Teoh also states that while “providing an initial
reduction in the level of tack, chlorination (and halogenation generally) may
not prevent the development of tack over the medium to long term” (page 2,
second para.).
However, notwithstanding the potential disadvantages of chlorination,
Teoh characterizes chlorination as a conventional method to render
elastomeric materials non-tacky (col. 3, second para.), and Chen provides
additional evidence that such a chlorination step was known in the art.
Accordingly, based on the state of the prior art, we must agree with the
Examiner that it would have been hardly nonobvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ a conventional technique, such as chlorination, to
render an elastomeric glove non-tacky. It is well settled that it is a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate a feature of the
prior art along with its attendant advantage and, similarly, it is a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known process or
technique and experience the known disadvantages thereof. See in re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Marzocchi, 456 F.2d 790, 793
(CCPA 1972); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 969 (CCPA 1965); In re Porter,
68 F.2d 971, 973 (CCPA 1934).
In the present case, Appellants have presented no argument, let alone
the requisite objective evidence, that they do not experience the known
disadvantages of employing a chlorination step. In addition, Appellants
have not rebutted the Examiner’s reasoning that Teoh teaches that additional
measures for reducing tack may be necessary in addition to the inclusion of
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

6
anti-tack agents in the elastomeric composition, such as increasing the
degree of cure of the glove or applying additional anti-tack agents in a
separate washing step, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the known chlorination step for providing
additional tack to the glove.
As for chlorinating the glove before it is removed from the former, we
agree with the Examiner that Agostinelli establishes that this was a known
way of chlorinating an elastomeric glove. Appellants’ argument against
citing Agostinelli uses the discredited logic of requiring all the features of
one reference to be bodily incorporated into another for a finding of
obviousness. See in re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 381 (CCPA 1966); In re
Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691 (CCPA 1960). In our view, it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use chlorination to tackify
the elastomeric glove of Teoh either before or after it is removed from the
former, and Agostinelli simply evidences that it was known in the art to
perform the chlorination step with the glove on the former.
Appellants do not present a separate, substantive argument against the
§ 103 rejection of claims 85-87 and 103-105 over the additional citation of
Holguin (See page 18 of Prin. Br.).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-013698
Application 10/733,155

7

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kmm

DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449