Ex Parte Younes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

11513764 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111513,764 08/31/2006
157 7590 10/03/2016
Covestro LLC
1 Covestro Circle
PITTSBURGH, PA 15205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
U sama E. Younes
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.
P08859/MD04- l 7 4434
EXAMINER
LEONARD, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
veronica. thompson@covestro.com
US-IPR@covestro.com
laura.finnell@covestro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte USAMA E. YOUNES
Appeal2015-001655
Application 11/513,764
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, 16-23, 25-33, 35, and 36. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2015-001655
Application 11/ 513, 7 64
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A low density glass fiber-reinforced polyurethane
composite having a gel time of from about 30 seconds to about
2 minutes and a de-mold time of from about 90 seconds to
about 6 minutes comprising the reaction product of
(1) an isocyanate-reactive component comprising:
a) a polyol having a hydroxyl group functionality
of from about 3 to about 8 and a hydroxyl number greater
than 200,
b) a catalyst,
c) a surfactant.
d) optionally, a crosslinking agent,
e) 0% by weight added water, and
t) optionally, dissolved carbon dioxide, and
(2) an isocyanate component comprising:
~ • 1 • ' 1 aJ an orgamc p01y1socyanace, ana
b) optionally, dissolved carbon dioxide, and
(3) a fibrous reinforcing material comprising glass fiber
having an average length of from 10 to 100 mm,
in which dissolved carbon dioxide is present in at least one of
the isocyanate-reactive component or the isocyanate component
and the total amount of carbon dioxide present in the
isocyanate-reactive and/or isocyanate component is from 0.2 to
2.0 grams per liter.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Saidla
Frisch
Nishikawa
us 4,073,840
us 4,680,214
JP 2000/336138
2
Feb. 14, 1978
July 14, 1987
Dec. 5, 2000
Appeal2015-001655
Application 11/ 513, 7 64
THE REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 6-14, 16-23, 25-33, 35, and 36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frisch in view Nishikawa,
and in view of Saidla.
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based
upon Appellant's presented arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections for the reasons set forth in the record, which we adopt as our own.
Nevertheless, we provide the following for emphasis.
Appellant states that the Examiner indicates it would have been
obvious to have chosen the foam system of Frisch, and substitute the
foaming agent of Nishikawa, in order to produce the composite material as
claimed. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that one skilled in the art wanting
to produce a low-density composite, would not have chosen Frisch, as a
starting point, as Frisch is directed to high-density foams. Id. However, we
are unpersuaded by this argument for the reason stated on page 5 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that Frisch is related to polyurethane
foams with the same density as in the instant application. The Examiner
states that Appellant argues that Frisch teaches high density whereas
Appellant's composite is directed to low density. Ans. 5. The Examiner
points out that Appellant's Specification discloses that low density values of
less than 0.9 glee are in accordance with the instant application, and Frisch
3
Appeal2015-001655
Application 11/ 513, 7 64
, .. .. •, • ,.. , £' '"',_ , -t , A,_ "t-t fr'", 1. /A A f , A ,_,,.....
teacnes aensn1es mat range rrom L) to aoout 4) rns.1nJ ~ U.4 g;cc to u. / L
glee), which meets the limitation of "less than 0.9 glee".
Appellants also argue that one looking at Frisch, and wanting to
produce a large composite article, would not have chosen the foaming agent
of Nishikawa, because Nishikawa is replete with references to the fact that
the foaming agent allows for extremely fast reaction and demolding times,
wherein 40 seconds and under is often disclosed. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in either Frisch or Nishikawa that the use
of dissolved C02 would allow the manufacturer sufficient time to produce a
large article, and certainly there is no disclosure or suggestion that a gel time
of from about 30 seconds to about 2 minutes and a de-mold time of from
about 90 seconds to about 6 minutes would be achieved by using the
foaming agent of Nishikawa. Appeal Br. 6-7.
We agree with the Examiner's stated reply made on pages 5---6 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that Frisch in view of Nishikawa
teach that by using the carbon dioxide foaming agent of Nishikawa, it is
possible to obtain gel times ranging from 10 to 40 seconds, and demold
times ranging from 1 :30 to 4:30, which overlaps the claimed range. The
Examiner also explains that Nishikawa teaches that the gel times can be
controlled by the amount of catalyst employed. Nishikawa, paras. [0006],
[0008], [0014], and [0025]. Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to have therefore substituted the preferred blowing agent
of Frisch for the blowing agent of Nishikawa for the reasons stated on page
6 of the Answer. We agree.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection.
4
Appeal2015-001655
Application 11/ 513, 7 64
The rejection is affirmed.
DECISION
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5