Ex Parte Soliman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201712808990 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2017) 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. 12/808,990 09/02/2010 Maria Soliman 24496-US-PCT 6554 102091 7590 06/28/2017 Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER OCHYLSKI, RYAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2017 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIA SOLIMAN, RAMON HUBERTUS ANNA MARIA MEIJERS, JOSEPH PAULUS HUBERTUS BOYENS, and JOHANNES HENRICUS THEODORUS DAALMANS Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 17, 2010; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated February 6, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated July 6, 2015; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December 8, 2015. 2 Appellants identify SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION as real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to “a process for producing a long glass fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composition.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows, with emphasis added to highlight the recitations in dispute: 1. A process for producing a long glass fibre- reinforced thermoplastic polymer composition, which comprises the subsequent steps of: a) unwinding from a package of at least one continuous glass multifilament strand containing at most 2% by mass of a sizing composition; b) applying from 0.5 to 20% by mass of an impregnating agent to said at least one continuous glass multifilament strand to form an impregnated continuous glass multifilament strand; and c) applying a sheath of thermoplastic polymer around the impregnated continuous glass multifilament strand at a line speed of at least 250 m/min to form a sheathed continuous glass multifilament strand; wherein the impregnating agent is non-volatile, has a melting point of at least 20°C below the melting point of the thermoplastic polymer, has a viscosity of from 2.5 to 100 cS at application temperature, and is compatible with the thermoplastic polymer. Independent claims 8 and 17 contain the same disputed recitations as claim 1. Each of the remaining claims on appeal depends from claim 1, 8, or 17. 2 Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 REJECTION The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:3 Claims 1—17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kashikar4 and Taguchi.5 DISCUSSION Appellants argue the claims as a group, focusing on recitations that are common to each of the independent claims. Br. 6—14. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal based on the representative claim alone. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Kashikar discloses a process for producing a long glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composition comprising: (a) unwinding a sized continuous glass multifilament strand; (b) applying about 5 to about 10% by weight of a coating composition to the strand; and (c) applying thermoplastic polymer sheath around the coated strand. Compare Final Act. 3^4 (citing Kashikar THf 71, 72, Fig. 2) with Br. 6-14. The Examiner also finds that Kashikar refers to use of a “conventional sizing composition,” and that Taguchi teaches use of a particular sizing composition at a concentration of 0.5 wt.%. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Kashikar 171; Taguchi col. 4,1. 61—col. 5,1. 20 and col. 9,11. 12—30). The Examiner’s findings are supported by a 3 Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 2. The Examiner mistakenly included canceled claim 18 in the statement of rejection. See Ans. 2. 4 US 2008/0143010 Al, published June 19, 2008 (“Kashikar”). 5 US 6,045,912, issued April 4, 2000 (“Taguchi”). 3 Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 preponderance of evidence as found in the passages of Kashikar and Taguchi cited by the Examiner. Appellants argue that neither Kashikar nor Taguchi teaches a line speed of at least 250 m/min, as is recited in claim 1 in connection with the polymer application step. Br. 7—9. Appellants argue that Taguchi’s Example 1 teaches a line speed of 30 m/min and, on that basis, contend that “if one skilled in the art modified Kashikar ‘010 in view of Taguchi as suggested by the Examiner, the process would appear to be at a line speed much lower than claimed by Applicants.” Id. at 9. Appellants also argue that “[tjhere is no motivation to even try higher throughput rates, and no expectation that a constant product quality could be attained.” Id. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner points to paragraphs 19 and 54 as evidence that a high line speed was considered desirable. Ans. 3. Kashikar identifies “high speed wire coating” as an “advantage.” Kashikar 119. Kashikar also identifies an embodiment of the disclosed invention as being useful in a “high speed wire coating process.” Id. 1 54. Although Appellants refer to Taguchi’s one exemplified embodiment involving the use of a lower speed wire coating process, they do not identify any teaching in Taguchi which would have negated the use of the advantageous “high speed wire coating process” taught by Kashikar. In light of the combined disclosures of Kashikar and Taguchi, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to maximize line speed in Kashikar’s process. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “an implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the ‘improvement’ is 4 Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient”). The fact that Taguchi mentions a slower line speed in one example does not negate the implicit motivation to maximize line speed in Kashikar’s process in order to improve speed and efficiency. Appellants further argue that “line speed can affect the resultant product and the ability to apply the sheath” (Br. 10), and that “[f]rom the disclosures of Kashikar ‘010 and Taguchi, there is no basis to believe that the presently claimed line speeds are possible” {id. at 12). According to Appellants, the claimed line speed is enabled by the “use of a limited amount of the sizing composition in combination with the use of a specified range for the impregnating agent.” Id. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that the combined teachings of Kashikar and Taguchi suggest use of the claimed sizing composition and impregnating agent in amounts within the recited ranges. Compare Final Act. 3^4 with Br. 6—14. As such, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that maximizing line speed in Kashikar’s process reasonably would have been expected to yield a line speed within Appellants’ recited range. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). Moreover, even if operating the prior art process at a line speed of at least 250 m/min were to result in some loss of quality relative to a slower line speed, that result alone would not negate the desire to operate at the higher line speed in order to achieve a faster process. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course 5 Appeal 2016-003924 Application 12/808,990 of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Appellants also argue that neither Kashikar nor Taguchi teaches that the impregnating composition exhibits a viscosity within the recited range of “from 2.5 to 100 cS at application temperature.” Br. 13—14 (emphasis added). However, as the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 5—6), claim 1 does not recite any temperature value. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, “application temperature,” in claim 1 encompasses “any temperature suited for application.” Ans. 6. Moreover, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Kashikar teaches the same impregnating agent (VYBAR 260 hyperbranched polyethylene wax) as that which is identified in the Specification as an embodiment of the claimed invention. Compare Final Act. 4 with Br. 6—14; see also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963) (“a compound and its properties are inseparable”). On this record, Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Kashikar’s impregnating agent would have exhibited the same physical viscosity property as is recited in claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 and 19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation