10014084 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2006)

Ex Parte Napp et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 30, 2006

10014084 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _______________ Ex parte REINER NAPP, FERDINAND ALTHAUSEN and WOLFGANG PAWLIK ______________ Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 _______________ ON BRIEF _______________ Before PAK, WALTZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. Decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 Applicants appeal the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 1-11. Claim 12 has been withdrawn from consideration. (Brief, p. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to a process for the production of filler- containing molded parts from at least two free-flowing reaction components. According to Appellants, at least one of the free-flowing chemical reaction components is divided into at least two portions and at least one of those portions is charged with filler before the reaction components are mixed. The reaction components are subsequently mixed in a manner such that the mixing ratio of the portions of the second component may be adjusted to vary the filler content of the molded part. The reaction mixture is then introduced into a mold. The reaction mixture is allowed to finish reacting in the mold and the molded part is removed from the mold. (Brief, pp. 2-3). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A process for the production of filler-containing molded parts from a free-flowing reaction mixture comprising: a) mixing at least two free-flowing chemical reaction components comprising (1) a first reaction component and (2) a second reaction component which is divided into at least two portions and at least one of the two portions is charged with filler in a manner such that the mixing ratio of the portions of the second component may be adjusted to vary the filler content of the molded part, Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 3 b) introducing the free-flowing reaction mixture into a mold, c) allowing the reaction mixture to finish reacting in the mold, and d) removing the molded part from the mold. CITED PRIOR ART As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references: Fitzgibbon 5,464,585 November 7, 1995 Harrison et al. (Harrison) 5,716,548 February 10, 1998 The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Fitzgibbon. The Examiner also rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzgibbon in view of Harrison. (Answer, page 3, referring the the Office Action mailed May [sic, June] 2, 2004). We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are well founded. Our reasons follow. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (mailed July 5, 2005) and the Office Action mailed June 2, 2004 for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Briefs (filed June 7, 2005 and September 8, 2005) for the Appellants’ arguments there against. Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 4 OPINION1 Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that Fitzgibbon does not anticipate the claimed invention because: (1) Appellants' process requires at least two different reaction components; (2) Appellants' invention requires that at least one reaction component be divided into two portions which portions differ only with respect to filler content; and (3) Appellants' process does not add filler in a stream which is independent of the first and/or second reaction component(s) but rather incorporates the filler into one or both of the reaction components prior to combination with the second reaction component. (Brief, p. 4). 1 We will consider the claims separately to the extent that the claims have been argued separately in the brief. Fitzgibbon discloses that it is known to carry out a process for the production of filler-containing molded parts from a free-flowing reaction mixture. Fitzgibbon discloses the bulk material can be divided into two streams each containing reactive components. (Col. 6, ll. 50-55). Fitzgibbon also discloses Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 5 that the auxiliary material can be included in one of the bulk streams. (Col. 4, 33-41; and col. 11, ll. 15-21). Fitzgibbon discloses that the auxiliary material can comprise components that correspond to the filler components of the claimed invention. (Col. 7, ll. 48-57). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 over the combined teachings of Fitzgibbon and Harrison. The Examiner relied on the Harrison reference for disclosing the use of natural fibers as filler materials. (Office Action mailed June 2, 2004). Appellants have not disputed that Harrison teaches the features relied upon by the Examiner. Rather, Appellants argue that Harrison does not “teach division of at least one of the two polyurethane-forming reaction components into at least two portions differing only with respect to filler content.” (Brief, p. 6). However, the Examiner did not rely on the Fitzgibbon reference for teaching the division of the bulk materials. Since Appellants have failed to challenge the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Harrison and Fitzgibbon, we presume that he is in agreement with the Examiner. Thus, for the reasons presented above regarding the rejection over Fitzgibbon and the reasons presented by the Examiner we will uphold the § 103 rejection. CONCLUSION Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 6 In summary, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 7 Time for taking action No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004). AFFIRMED ) CHUNG K. PAK ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) JEFFREY T. SMITH ) Administrative Patent Judge ) JTS/TF Comment [COMMENT1]: The year should be entered here. Appeal No. 2005-2723 Application No. 10/014,084 8 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC 100 BAYER ROAD PITTSBURGH, PA 15205