Ex Parte Steininger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

13062595 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/062,595 03/07/2011
123223 7590 09/15/2016
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM)
222 Delaware A venue, Ste. 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801-1621
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Helmut Steininger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
074008-1616-US (286560) 5770
EXAMINER
BELL, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
IPDocketWM@dbr.com
penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELMUT STEININGER, CECILE GIBON,
MARTIN WEBER, THOMAS BREINER,
WALTER HECKMANN, and HANS-HELMUT GOERTZ 1
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BASF SE. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed March 7, 2011
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed April 2, 2014 (Final), the Advisory
Action mailed July 10, 2014, the Appeal Brief filed August 26, 2014
(Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed November 10, 2014 (Ans.),
and the Reply Brief filed January 7, 2015 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kanda3 in view of Akkapeddi, 4 Yoon, 5 and Rodriguez. 6 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a process for the production of sheet-like
moldings with anisotropic coefficients of thermal expansion. See, e.g., claim
13. The process involves incorporating phyllosilicates into a thermoplastic
molding composition and subjecting the resulting composition to extrusion-
blowing followed by stacking and hot-laminating the extrusion-blown foils
together, and molding the resulting laminate by impact extrusion processes
or thermoforming. Id.
According to Appellants' Specification, it was known in the art to use
lamellar inorganic fillers, such as phyllosilicates, in polymer molding
compositions. Spec. 1 :29-30. It was further known, as discussed in Yoon,
that phyllosilicate-filled nylon-6 leads to moldings with coefficients of
thermal expansion that are different in all three spatial directions due to
orientation of the delaminated phyllosilicates. Spec. 2:4-9. However, the
orientation produced in the prior art process, which according to Yoon is an
injection molding process, does not produce an adequately reduced
3 Kanda et al., US 2008/0069994 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008.
4 Akkapeddi et al., US 2005/0009976 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005.
5 Yoon et al., Thermal expansion behavior of nylon 6 nanocomposites,
Polymer 43 6727---6741 (2002).
6 Rodriguez, Principles of Polymer Systems, 2nd ed. 333-336 (1982). The
Examiner introduced Rodriguez in the Advisory Action mailed July 10,
2014.
2
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
coefficient of thermal expansion in two spatial directions when the injection
molded products have less than 1 mm wall thickness. Spec. 2: 11-16.
Appellants solve this problem by using an extrusion and orientation process
to orient the phyllosilicate filler.
Appellants' claimed process involves extruding a thermoplastic
polymer molding composition filled with lamellar phyllosilicates of a
particular diameter and aspect ratio through an annular die, and orienting the
resulting extrudate by blowing to form oriented sheet-like moldings or foils.
Claim 13. The extrusion-blowing process orients the phyllosilicates within
the extrudate, which results in a small in-plane coefficient of thermal
expansion, but a high coefficient of thermal expansion perpendicular to the
plane of the major surface. Spec. 2:36-3:2. The resulting sheet-like
moldings or foils are thin. Appellants thus stack and hot-laminate the sheet-
like moldings or foils to increase layer thickness. Claim 13; see also Spec.
3:29-31; 7:32-37; 9:5-9. To produce the molded product, Appellants then
use impact extrusion processes or thermoforming. These molded products
are particularly useful in automobile parts such as exterior bodywork, wheel
surrounds, engine hoods, doors, tailgates, and interior fittings. Spec. 4:6-10.
Claim 13 is the only independent claim. We reproduce this claim
from Appellants' Appendix A, with the limitation particularly at issue
highlighted, below:
13. A process for the production of sheet-like moldings
with anisotropic coefficients of thermal expansion, composed
of extrudable thermoplastic polymer molding compositions, the
process compnsmg:
filling the thermoplastic polymer molding compositions
with lamellar phyllosilicates whose diameter is in the range
3
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
from 10 to 1000 nm and whose aspect ratio is in the range from
1:5 to 1: 10 000,
extruding the filled thermoplastic polymer molding
compositions, and then
monoaxially or biaxially orienting the extrudate to give
sheet-like moldings or foils with anisotropic coefficients of
thermal expansion,
wherein the extruded and oriented moldings or foils are
stacked and hot-laminated, in order to increase layer thickness,
whereby the dispersion or the orientation of the filler is
not adversely affected, and whereby either the dispersion or the
orientation of the filler is not adversely affected in that a high
level of orientation of the phyllosilicates is achieved resulting in
a small coefficient of thermal expansion in the plane of the
major surface, in the range from 36*I0-6 K-1 to 134*10_6 K-1,
whereas perpendicular to the major surface the coefficient of
thermal expansion is high and in the range from 85* 1 o-6 K-1 to
308*I0-6 K-1 and
whereby producing the moldings is carried out via impact
extrusion processes or via thermoforming,
wherein the extruding takes place from an annular die
with subsequent orientation, via blowing.
Appeal Br. 10 (formatting added).
OPINION
The Examiner finds Kanda teaches filling a thermoplastic polymer
with lamellar phyllosilicates, extruding and orienting. Final 3. The
Examiner then finds that
the extruded and oriented moldings or foils are stacked and hot-
laminated in order to increase layer thickness (see [0043], wherein the
formation of a laminate comprising multiple layers of the filled
4
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
thermoplastic is taught; see [0046], wherein coextrusion, which
comprises stacking and hot-laminating the layers, is taught as the
method of forming the multilayer structure).
Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner is equating coextrusion with stacking and hot-
laminating. There is no basis for this finding.
Hot-laminating, as evidenced by Appellants' Specification, involves
applying heat and pressure to already-formed sheets, foils, or films. See,
e.g., Spec. 9:5-9. Such hot-laminating occurs only after the molding
compositions have been extruded and oriented to form the sheet-like
molding. Coextrusion forms layers during the extrusion process, it is not a
process of stacking and hot-laminating. That coextrusion is a different
process than stacking and hot-laminating is evidenced by Appellants'
Specification, which discusses coextrusion as an alternative to lamination.
See, e.g., Spec. 3:31-33 ("The lamination process can be omitted if the
molten sublayers produced in a coextrusion process are mutually
superposed."); Spec. 7:32-34 ("individual foil sublayers in stacks were hot-
laminated or produced by a coextrusion process." (Emphasis added)).
Because the Examiner did not provide adequate support for the
finding that Kanda teaches stacking and hot-laminating as required by claim
13, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred. Appeal Br.
6-7; Reply Br. 1-5.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
5
Appeal2015-003289
Application 13/062,595
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6