Ex Parte Ombe Wandji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2018

13642653 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2018)

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.
13/642,653 12/28/2012 Nadege Ombe Wandji 406601US99PCT 4067
22850 7590 01/04/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GILLETT, JENNIFER ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NADEGE OMBE WANDJI, ALIX ARNAUD,
PHILIPPE ESPIARD, and KATARZYNA CHUDA
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a glass strand structure and a bonded abrasive
article comprising that structure. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A glass strand structure comprising continuous glass
strands in the form of a web, a mat, a mesh, or a fabric, or cut
glass strands in the form of a mat,
wherein the web, mat, mesh, or fabric comprises a
coating comprising a resin composition, wherein the resin
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
composition comprises, by weight percent of solid matter of the
resin composition:
from 75 to 98% of a mixture comprising a first novolac
having a glass transition temperature lower than or equal to
60°C and a second novolac having a glass transition
temperature above 60°C;
from 0.5 to 10% of a wax;
from 1 to 15% of at least one crosslinking agent selected
from the group consisting of an imine and modified melamine
of formula (I):
wherein Ri, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are each independently
a hydrogen atom, or a -CH2OH, -CH2OCH3,
or -CH2OCH2OCH3 radical, where at least one of the radicals
Ri to R6 is not H; and
from 0 to 10% of a plasticizing agent,
wherein the first and second novolacs are obtained by
reacting phenol and formaldehyde in a formaldehyde/phenol
molar ratio in a range from 0.75 to 0.85.
Gerber
Swedo
Amaud
Keipert
The References
US 5,686,506
US 2005/0009980 A1
US 2010/0180512 A1
US 2010/0203282 A1
Nov. 11, 1997
Jan. 13, 2005
July 22, 2010
Aug. 12, 2010
S. Lin-Gibson et al., Controlled molecular weight cresol—formaldehyde
oligomers, 43 Polymer 2017—29 (2002) (hereinafter Lin-Gibson).
2
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1—
4, 6—13, 16, 19, and 20 over Keipert in view of Gerber, Lin-Gibson and
Amaud, and claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-16, 19, and 20 over Amaud in view of
Swedo.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only independent
claim 1.1
Rejection over Keipert in view of
Gerber, Lin-Gibson and Arnaud
Keipert discloses a coated abrasive laminate disk (100) which is
useful for abrading a workpiece and comprises an abrasive
particle (160)-containing abrasive layer (130) secured to a backing
disc (120) by make (140) and size (150) layers comprising a binder resin
which can be a phenolic binder (|| 54, 66, 67; Fig. 1). Suitable abrasive
particles (160) include alumina, silica, zirconia and quartz (| 69). The
backing disc (120) comprises woven fabric (124) (which can comprise glass
fibers) joined to a woven or nonwoven glass fabric (125) by a thermoplastic
laminating adhesive (122) (|| 66, 78, 84; Fig. 1). The glass fabric (125) is
permeated with a saturant which can be phenolic and “serves to bind,
strengthen, stiffen and dimensionally stabilize the glass fabric as well as to
reduce the tendency for the glass fibers to fracture when flexed” flflf 66, 85).
“Examples of useful nonwoven glass fabrics include continuous strand mats,
chopped strand mats, bonded mats, air-laid webs and felts” (1 89).
1 Claim 1 ’s limitations are included in dependent claims 2-4 and 6—16 and
bonded abrasive article claims 19 and 20.
3
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
Gerber makes refractory bricks by mixing refractory aggregate with a
curing agent-containing binder, pressing the mixture to form bricks,
thermally curing the bricks to convert them to green-strength bricks, and
coking the green-strength bricks (col. 1,11. 7—14; col. 2,1. 66 — col. 3,1. 3;
col. 3,11. 43 46). The refractory aggregate can be doloma and/or one or
more other refractory aggregates such as alumina, silica or quartz (col. 4,
11. 3—8). The binder comprises novolac resin, a (lower) alkoxymethylated
melamine-formaldehyde resin chemical agent (which increases the cured
brick green strength at ambient temperature and serves as a binder curing
agent at higher temperatures), a solvent and a low level of water (col. 2,
11. 37-41; col. 3,11. 6-10, 43^16; col. 4,11. 21, 40-41; col. 5,11. 49-52).2
The Examiner finds that “[a]s Keipert explicitly teaches the use of
phenolic resin as being predictably suitable, as well as specifies a
phenol-formaldehyde resin having phenol present in excess and the use of
novolac in exemplary embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art would
look to other phenolic resins, specifically phenol-formaldehydes, including
novolac resins” (Ans. 20), and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified the invention of Keipert to comprise the novolac binder system of
Gerber as the phenolic resin that can include novolac as a suitable binding
system from abrasive particles such as calcium magnesium carbonate and
2 The Examiner relies upon Lin-Gibson for a disclosure of no significant
differences between the glass transition temperatures of ortho- and
para-cresol novolacs having similar molecular weights (p. 2026) and relies
upon Amaud for a disclosure of novolac resin containing antiblocking wax
and a plasticizer (|| 27—30) (Ans. 5—7).
4
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
coating and having a higher green strength making it more durable during
processing before the system is cured” (Ans. 5).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent
reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner does not address the differences between Keipert’s
coated abrasive laminate disc and Gerber’s refractory brick and establish
that regardless of those differences, Gerber would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to use, as Keipert’s phenolic
binder for securing abrasive particles to a backing disc (H 66, 67), Gerber’s
novolac binder resin containing a (lower) alkoxymethylated melamine-
formaldehyde resin for enhancing refractory brick green strength and serving
as a curing agent before the binder is pyrolyzed during coking to produce the
refractory brick (col. 1,11. 48—51; col. 2,1. 66 —col. 3,1. 13; col. 4,11. 11—14,
21, 40-41).
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention over Keipert in view of
Gerber, Lin-Gibson and Amaud.
Rejection over Arnaud in view of Swedo
Amaud discloses “a resin composition capable of coating a glass fiber
stmcture designed to reinforce bonded abrasive articles, and in particular
grinding wheels, that gives the stmcture great flexibility and low adhesive
power, and that limits the risk of polluting emission of formaldehyde and
nitrogen-containing compounds” (126). The resin coating comprises 75—
98 wt% of a mixture of at least one novolac having a glass transition
temperature lower than or equal to 60 -C and at least one novolac having a
5
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
glass transition temperature above 60 -C, 0.5—10 wt% of at least one wax,
and 0-3.5 wt% of at least one plasticizing agent 27—30). “The novolac
having the lower glass transition temperature gives flexibility to the structure
and makes it possible to have a high level of flexibility. It makes it possible
to compensate for the too high rigidity of the novolac with a higher glass
transition temperature and in this way to adjust the flexibility to the desired
level” (| 32). The resin composition “does not contain any crosslinking
agent, which is particularly advantageous since novolacs may preserve their
initial thermoplastic nature” (| 43). The glass fiber structure “may be
composed of continuous glass yams, preferably in the form of a nonwoven
such as a web or a mat, a mesh or fabric, or of a mat of cut strands” (144).
Amaud makes an abrasive grinding wheel by cutting the resin-coated glass
fiber stmcture to a mold’s dimensions, placing alternating layers of abrasive
particles/binder and the resin-coated glass fiber stmcture into the mold,
compressing the layers at a temperature generally below 170 -C to produce a
green-state part in which the binder is not crosslinked, removing the
green-state part from the mold, and heating the green-state part in an oven at
a temperature which enables the binder to crosslink to form a hardened
polymer network that gives the abrasive grinding wheel its final form (]f]f 14,
63, 64). The crosslinking “consists of bringing the green part to a
temperature of the order of 100° C. and of holding it at this temperature for
30 minutes to several hours so that the volatile products formed may be
removed. The part is then heated to a temperature of the order of 200 to
250° C. for 10 to 35 hours” (164).
Swedo discloses novolacs crosslinked using a crosslinking agent
which can be an imine or a triazine (H 6, 21).
6
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
The Examiner finds that Amaud’s resin composition which coats the
glass fiber structure and contains novolac resins having higher and lower
glass transition temperatures is crosslinked (Ans. 14—16).
Amaud discloses that the abrasive particles’ binder, not the glass
fiber’s novolac resin coating composition, is crosslinked (^flf 14, 64).
The Examiner finds that crosslinking Amaud’s glass fiber coating
composition would not destroy the desired higher flexibility obtained by
using in the composition a combination of novolac resins having higher and
lower glass transition temperatures flflf 28, 32) (Ans. 14, 15).
The Appellants challenge that finding (Reply Br. 6). Hence, we do
not accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA
1964).
The Examiner finds that Amaud’s disclosures that not using a
crosslinking agent limits the risk of pollution emission of formaldehyde and
nitrogen-containing compounds and preserves the novolacs’ initial
thermoplastic nature flflf 26, 43) establish the predictable benefit of using a
crosslinking agent to decrease curing time (Ans. 15—17).
The Examiner does not establish that crosslinking Amaud’s glass
fiber stmcture’s novolac resin coating composition would provide a benefit
sufficient to have led one of ordinary skill in the art to forgo Amaud’s
disclosed benefits of not using a crosslinking agent (|| 26, 43).
The Examiner finds that “[b]y Appellants’ own disclosure, the
inclusion of crosslinking agents, such as HMTA [hexamethylenetetramine]3
and alkoxylated melamines, are acceptable for use in applications targeting
3 The Appellants include hexamethylenetetramine in their claim term
“imine” (Spec. 7:9-10; claim 9).
7
Appeal 2017-005357
Application 13/642,653
the fewest possible compounds that can harm human health or the
environment” (Ans. 16).
That finding is not well taken because the Appellants’ disclosure is
not prior art.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention over Amaud in view of
Swedo.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1—4, 6—13, 16, 19,
and 20 over Keipert in view of Gerber, Lin-Gibson and Amaud, and
claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-16, 19, and 20 over Amaud in view of Swedo are
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8