11257944 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Wernsing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

11257944 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/257,944 10/25/2005 David G. Wernsing 7087 2498 29602 7590 09/26/2012 JOHNS MANVILLE 10100 WEST UTE AVENUE PO BOX 625005 LITTLETON, CO 80162-5005 EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1765 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte DAVID G. WERNSING and ANGELA R. BRATSCH __________ Appeal 2011-004840 Application 11/257,944 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004840 Application 11/257,944 2 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 13-18, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal is directed to a foam suitable for use as a thermal insulation material and a process for producing the foam. The foam matrix comprises a polyisocyanurate and/or a polyurethane and a plurality of nanoparticles. According to the Appellants’ Specification: The nanoparticles can contain a coating to impart desirable characteristics to the particles. For example, the nanoparticles can be surface-treated with an anti-agglomeration agent for reducing or preventing the formation of nanoparticle agglomerates in the foam. Spec. 3, ll. 7-10. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative. 1. A foam suitable for use as a thermal insulation material, comprising: a foam matrix comprising a polyisocyanurate and/or a polyurethane, and a plurality of nanoparticles present in the foam matrix; wherein each nanoparticle comprises a coating comprising an anti-agglomeration agent. 6. A process for producing a foam suitable for use as a thermal insulation material, comprising: mixing at least an A-component with a B-component to form a foam comprising a polyisocyanurate and/or a polyurethane, wherein a plurality of nanoparticles is present in the foam; wherein the mixing comprises directing a pressurized flow of the A-component at a pressurized flow of the B-component inside a mix head comprising two nozzles arranged facing each other and Appeal 2011-004840 Application 11/257,944 3 about one quarter inch apart from each other and each pressurized flow is ejected at a pressure of from about 2000 psi to about 2500 psi. Br., Claims Appendix.1 The Appellants seek review of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 13- 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kresta,2 Gilman,3 and Soukup.4 B. DISCUSSION There is no dispute on this record that Kresta discloses a polyurethane foam comprising nanoclay. See Ans. 3-45; Br. 4. However, the Examiner finds Kresta does not disclose the nanoclay is treated with an anti-agglomeration agent as recited in the claims on appeal. The Examiner finds Gilman “discloses it to be well known that nanoclays can be treated with agents meeting the requirements of appellants’ claims for the purpose of exfoliating and increasing surface area of the particles.” Ans. 4. In particular, Gilman discloses nanoclays “may require special treatment to separate the nanolayers to achieve the desired high surface area (exfoliation).” Gilman, col. 9, ll. 19-22. Gilman discloses natural montmorillonite may be treated with PHT4-DIOL at elevated temperatures to achieve exfoliation. Id. at ll. 22-29. The Examiner finds “achieving desired high surface area (exfoliation) is seen to correspond with achieving anti-agglomeration to the degree required by appellants’ claims.” Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner contends the 1 Appeal Brief dated August 20, 2010. 2 US 6,518,324 B1 issued February 11, 2003. 3 US 6,653,361 B2 issued November 25, 2003. 4 US 6,140,383 issued October 31, 2000. 5 Examiner’s Answer dated October 25, 2010. Appeal 2011-004840 Application 11/257,944 4 “treatment with PHT4-DIOL . . . is seen to meet the coating with an anti- agglomeration agent to the degree required by appellants’ claims.” Id. The Appellants argue the exfoliation treatment disclosed in Gilman “has nothing to do with a coating, let alone an anti-agglomeration coating.” Br. 4. Thus, the Appellants contend the proposed combination of Kresta and Gilman does not suggest the claimed foam “wherein each nanoparticle comprises a coating comprising an anti-agglomeration agent” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5. According to the Appellants’ Specification, the claimed coating may be formed by surface-treating nanoparticles with an anti-agglomeration agent. Spec. 3, ll. 7-10. The Appellants have failed to explain, in any detail, why the PHT4-DIOL treatment described in Gilman is not a “coating” within the scope of the claims. Likewise, the Appellants have failed to direct us to any evidence establishing that the high surface area (exfoliation) achieved by Gilman’s treatment does not result in some degree of anti-agglomeration. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence weighs most heavily in favor of the Examiner’s position that the PHT4-DIOL treatment disclosed in Gilman is a coating comprising an anti-agglomeration agent as recited in the claims on appeal. As for the claimed process, the Appellants argue the proposed combination of Kresta and Soukup does not suggest the step of “directing a pressurized flow of the A-component at a pressurized flow of the B-component inside a mix head comprising two nozzles arranged facing each other and about one quarter inch apart from each other and each pressurized flow is ejected at a pressure of from Appeal 2011-004840 Application 11/257,944 5 about 2000 psi to about 2500 psi” as recited in claim 6.6 Br. 6. The Appellants also argue the proposed combination of Kresta and Soukup does not suggest that “at least one conduit feeds flow of a component to each nozzle” as recited in claim 17 or “at least one conduit has a diameter of about one sixteenth inch or less” as recited in claim 18. Id. The Examiner recognizes Soukup does not disclose these limitations. However, the Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that these limitations are obvious design choices. Ans. 5, 8; see also Soukup, col. 1, ll. 24-30 (disclosing metering pumps boost pressure to 2000 to 2500 psi and deliver Components A and B to at least one foam mixhead where they are impinged against each other at high pressure, which results in intimate mixing of the components). For the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner’s Answer, the § 103(a) rejection on appeal is sustained. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner 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(a) (2011). AFFIRMED bar 6 Independent claim 6 does not recite that the nanoparticles comprise a coating comprising an anti-agglomeration agent. See Br., Claims Appendix.