Ex Parte Yokoyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13367407 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
13/367,407 02/07/2012 Ayumu Yokoyama 176.0177 (FA1922USNP) 4046
111787 7590 01/04/2017
T.KTlInhal ( EXAMINER
7010 E. Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
LOPEZ, RICARDO E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
docketing@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AYUMU YOKOYAMA, HARI BABU SUNKARA, and
RAJESH GOP ALAN S ALIYA
Appeal 2016-000466
Application 13/367,407
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JULIA HEANEY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a waterborne coating
composition including a specified coalescing agent and a polymer
component wherein the composition is free from any crosslinking agent.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A waterborne coating composition comprising:
A) a polymer component comprising one or more
polymers free from crosslinkable functional groups; and
Appeal 2016-000466
Application 13/367,407
B) a coalescing agent comprising a polytrimethylene
ether glycol having a Mn (number average molecular weight) in
a range of from 100 to 490; wherein said waterborne coating
composition comprises in a range of from 20% to 80% of
water, percentage based on total weight of said waterborne
coating composition, and
said waterborne coating composition is free from any
crosslinking agent.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Sekmakas et al. 4,525,510 June 25, 1985
Harmer et al., Renew ably sourced polytrimethylene ether glycol by
superacid catalyzed condensation of 1,3-propanediol Vol. 12, No. 8 Green
Chemistry 1317-1480 (2010).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekmakas in view of Harmer.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient
to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejection for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action (Ans. 3—9; Final Act. 2—
7). We offer the following for emphasis only.
2
Appeal 2016-000466
Application 13/367,407
Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we
decide this appeal.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
teachings of Sekmakas and Harmer. Rather, Appellants limit their
arguments to the “free from any crosslinking agent” limitation of claim 1
and argue that neither of the applied references teaches or suggests that the
coating composition of Sekmakas (as modified by Harmer) is free from any
crosslinking agent (App. Br. 7). According to Appellants, “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand that a ‘thermosetting’ is free
from any crosslinking agents” as suggested by the list of referenced U.S.
patents and Patent Publications presented by Appellants (App. Br. 7—9).
As determined by the Examiner, however, the list of Patent documents
supplied by Appellants are directed to thermosetting resins which may be
crosslinked via the use of isocyanates, to achieve fastness properties and, as
such, such argument seems to be misdirected (Ans. 9). Furthermore, the
Examiner finds that the “IUPAC” definition of thermosetting polymer
provided by Appellant in the Brief, confirms the Office position . . .” and
undercuts Appellants’ argument (Ans. 8; App. Br. 8).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Sekmakas, one of the applied
references before us, teaches a coating composition that is free of a
crosslinking agent (Ans. 8; Sekmakas, col. 4,11. 17—19; Example 2).
Appellants do not specifically dispute the latter finding of the
Examiner and, significantly, Appellants have not directed us to any
particular disclosure of Sekmakas that they believe teaches the inclusion of a
crosslinking agent in the coating composition of Sekmakas and satisfactorily
3
Appeal 2016-000466
Application 13/367,407
explained why Sekmakas’ coating composition could not be formulated
without the inclusion of any cross-linking agent.
Consequently, Appellants have not identified harmful error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection by the argument presented.
It follows that we affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims 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).
AFFIRMED
4