Harold Brown et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 20212020006482 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021) 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. 13/545,216 07/10/2012 Harold M. Brown 6594A 1000 25280 7590 10/01/2021 Legal Department (M-495) P.O. Box 1926 Spartanburg, SC 29304 EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 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): patents@milliken.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte HAROLD M. BROWN and JOHN CREECH __________ Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Milliken & Company. Appeal Brief dated December 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2. Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 2 § 103(a) as unpatentable over JP 9742 in view of Burke3 and Jariwala.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellant discloses that composite materials comprised of multiple layers of textile substrate and rubber often delaminate at the textile-rubber interface. Spec. ¶ 3. As an example, printing blankets, which are typically constructed by laminating multiple layers of fabric and rubber with adhesives, are said to experience delamination when they are wrapped around a metal cylinder and rotated at high speed. Spec. ¶ 4. To improve adhesion at the textile-rubber interface, the Appellant discloses that textile substrates are currently treated with a resorcinol-formaldehyde-latex (“RFL”) composition which is said to reduce the occurrence and frequency of delamination. Spec. ¶ 4. Nonetheless, the Appellant discloses that failures still occur and the market desires further improvements. Spec. ¶ 4. The Appellant discloses that delamination also may occur when solvents are wicked into the fabric layers of the printing blanket. Spec. ¶ 5. The Appellant describes the problem as follows: During normal use, a printing blanket is often exposed to cleaning solvents which are used to clean the blanket. These solvents are inadvertently absorbed by the visible edges of the fabric comprising the printing blanket. The solvent-containing material travels inward, often a significant distance, toward the center of the printing blanket and causes that fabric layer to lose its adhesion to the adjacent rubber layer. 2 JP 63126974 A, published May 30, 1988 (“JP 974”). The Examiner refers to this reference as “JP 6312697 A.” See Final Office Action dated July 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”), at 3. 3 US 4,255,486, to Burke, Jr. et al., issued March 10, 1981 (“Burke”). 4 US 2010/0173085 A1, to Jariwala et al., published July 8, 2010 (“Jariwala”). Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 3 Spec. ¶ 5. The Appellant’s invention is said to be directed to compositions and methods of using the compositions to improve the adhesion of textile substrates to rubber or rubber-containing materials. Spec. ¶ 2. The composition comprises an aqueous mixture of at least one phenol compound (e.g., a resorcinol compound), at least one aldehyde compound, and at least one fluorocarbon-containing compound. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 19. In one aspect, the fluorocarbon-containing compound is a water repellent polymer containing a perfluoroalkyl group having an average carbon chain length of four, six, or eight carbon atoms. Spec. ¶ 32. The composition is said to significantly improve the adhesion of textile substrate to rubber by (1) reducing solvent wicking in the textile substrate layer and (2) eliminating the heat degradation exhibited by current RFL compositions. Spec. ¶ 6. Representative claim 10 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized. 10. A printing blanket comprising at least one layer of textile substrate, wherein the textile substrate is a woven fabric, and at least one layer of a rubber material, wherein said at least one layer of textile substrate is adhered to said at least one layer of rubber material with an adhesive composition comprising an aqueous mixture of resorcinol, at least one aldehyde compound, and at least one fluorocarbon-containing compound, wherein the at least one fluorocarbon-containing compound is a water repellent polymer containing a perfluoroalkyl group having an average carbon chain length from six to eight carbon atoms. Appeal Br. 8. B. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds JP 974 discloses an adhesive composition that improves the adhesion of a reinforcing fiber to a rubber matrix without lowering strength or resistance to heat and wear. Final Act. 4. JP 974 discloses that the adhesive Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 4 composition includes a water soluble condensate of resorcinol and formaldehyde. The Examiner finds JP 974 teaches that the composition also includes “a water repellant perfluoroalkyl polymer having the average chain carbon length of 3 [but not] the claimed length of 6–8.” Ans. 3;5 see also JP 974 (disclosing that the fluorocarbon resin latex in the adhesive composition includes PTFE latex, TFE/propylene copolymer latex, and polyhexafluoropropylene latex). The Examiner finds Jariwala teaches a perfluoroalkyl polymer having 1–12 carbon atoms (encompassing the claimed perfluoroalkyl polymer having 6 to 8 carbon atoms) that imparts water-repellency to a wide variety of textile substrates. Final Act. 4 (citing Jariwala ¶¶ 37, 176–178). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the perfluoroalkyl polymer disclosed in JP 974 with the perfluoroalkyl polymer disclosed in Jariwala. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings as to JP 974 or Jariwala.6 Rather, the Appellant argues there is no reason to combine JP 974 and Jariwala as proposed because the prior art of record fails to recognize that solvent wicking into printing blanket layers causes delamination problems.7 Appeal Br. 6. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As explained by the Examiner, the claims on appeal do not recite “any particular anti- 5 Examiner’s Answer dated March 31, 2020. 6 Likewise, the Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding that Burke teaches improving the bond strength between a woven fabric and rubber using an adhesive. Final Act. 5. 7 The Examiner finds, and the Appellant does not dispute, that the article taught by the combination of JP 974, Jariwala, and Burke is capable of functioning as a printing blanket. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 5 wicking or delamination properties.” Final Act. 2. Claim 10 merely recites an adhesive composition comprising, inter alia, “a water repellent polymer containing a perfluoroalkyl group having an average carbon chain length from six to eight carbon atoms.” Appeal Br. 8. There is no dispute on this record that JP 974 and Jariwala both disclose water repellent polymers containing a perfluoroalkyl group. Thus, in the obviousness rejection on appeal, the Examiner is merely substituting one known water repellent polymer for another known water repellent polymer. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.”). The Appellant does not direct us to any evidence establishing that the proposed substitution would have been expected to render JP 974’s adhesive composition unsuitable for its intended purpose. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 7 (relying on In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457 (CCPA 1977), to establish that “[h]omologs . . . are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”). Likewise, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence of unexpected results. See Ans. 7 (finding that “[t]here is nothing on the record to show the criticality of going from the alkyl chain length as taught in [JP 974] of 3 carbons to the length of 6–8 carbons as claimed has any unexpected results”). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claim 10 based on the combination of JP 974, Burke, and Jariwala is sustained. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of the remaining claims on appeal. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 based on the combination of JP 974, Burke, and Jariwala also is sustained. Appeal 2020-006482 Application 13/545,216 6 C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 103(a) JP 974, Burke, Jariwala 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation