Milliken & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2021

2020001985 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

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.
15/278,095 09/28/2016 Xiaoyong Michael Hong 6778B 6503
25280 7590 03/29/2021
Legal Department (M-495)
P.O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304
EXAMINER
EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2021 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 XIAOYONG MICHAEL HONG,
PETER XIE, and BRIAN SUN
____________

Appeal 2020-001985
Application 15/278,095
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, and 7 of Application
15/278,095.1 Final Act. (February 5, 2019) 2.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Milliken & Co. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 8–14 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as drawn to a non-elected invention. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-001985
Application 15/278,095
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’095 Application describes substrates comprising a surface
coating which is intended to mimic the look and feel of leather. Spec. 1. The
’095 Application describes that synthetic leather is typically produced by
coating or laminating an elastic polymer resin onto the surface of a fibrous
base material. Id. The ’095 Application describes colored polyurethane
synthetic leathers, which exhibit desired aesthetic qualities and do not have
coloration bleed issues. Id. at 2–3.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’584 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A synthetic leather article comprising a substrate and at
least one coating layer on at least one surface of the
substrate, wherein the coating layer is comprised of a
resin and a polymeric colorant, wherein the polymeric
colorant is complexed with a cationic compound.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Xia ’461.3 Final Act. 2–3;
Answer 3–4.
2. Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Xia ’657.4 Final Act. 2–3;
Answer 4–5.

3 US 7,662,461 B2, issued Feb. 16, 2010.
4 US 2011/0111657 A1, published May 12, 2011
Appeal 2020-001985
Application 15/278,095
3
III. DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for reversal of the anticipation rejections of claims
1–4, 6, and 7 based upon the limitations in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–4. We
select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant also
presents separate arguments for the patentability of claim 3. Appeal Br. 4.
Accordingly, claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 will stand or fall with claim 1. We will
address claim 3 separately.
A. Rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 7 as anticipated by Xia ’461.
1. Claim 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by Xia ’461. Answer 3–
4.
If “each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in
a single prior art reference,” then the claim is invalid under § 102 for
anticipation. Sanofi–Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted).
The Examiner found Xia ’461 describes all of the synthetic leather
article’s elements and limitations recited in claim 1, including the required
polymeric colorant complexed with a cationic compound. Answer 3 (citing
Xia ’461 1:57–61; 3:65–4:24 (disclosing structure III)).
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection because Xia ’461 fails
to describe each and every limitation recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant contends that Xia ’461’s structure III cannot anticipate the claim
because “an anionic moiety (“G[-]”),” not a cationic compound, is “attached
to an organic chromophore (“R4”).” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant that Xia ’461 does not describe
the disputed limitation of claim 1. The Examiner correctly found that Xia
Appeal 2020-001985
Application 15/278,095
4
’461’s structure III shows that the organic chromophore [R4—(G-)h] is
complexed with the cationic compound [(R5)k—M+— (Z—X)j]h, wherein
“M+” represent a phosphonium atom. Answer 4. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant’s argument fails to address the cationic component
of Xia ’461’s structure III. Id.
We, therefore, determine that the Examiner did not reversibly err in
rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Xia ’461. Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 2–4, 6, and 7, which depend from claim 1.
2. Claim 3
Claim 3 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief.
3. The synthetic leather article of claim 1, wherein the
polymeric colorant is comprised of a reactive dye and a
polymeric compound with at least one functional group
covalently linked to the reactive dye molecule.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 3 should be reversed
because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appeal Br. 4. Appellant contends that Xia ’461 fails to disclose covalent
linkage between at least one functional group and a reactive dye molecule.
Id.
In response, the Examiner concluded that claim 3’s requirements are
met by Xia ’461’s teaching a polymeric colorant, regardless of the process
for producing the polymeric colorant. Answer 5.
Appellant has not adequately addressed or rebutted the Examiner’s
position. We note Xia ’461 explicitly discloses that “[t]he oligomeric
constituent can be bound to the chromophore via any suitable means, such as
Appeal 2020-001985
Application 15/278,095
5
a covalent bond.” Xia ’461 3:48–50 (emphasis added). The Specification
describes that the general structure of the claimed reactive dye may include a
chromophore. Spec. 8:21–9:2. In other words, Xia ’461 discloses that at least
one functional group is covalently linked to the reactive dye molecule within
the meaning of claim 3.
We, therefore, determine that the Examiner did not reversibly err in
rejecting claim 3 as anticipated by Xia ’461.
B. Rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 7 as anticipated by Xia ’657.
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of the rejection of claims 1–4, 6,
and 7 as anticipated by Xia ’657 are substantially identical to the arguments
discussed in § III.A. See Appeal Br. 3–4 (Arguing that “[c]laims 1–4 and 6–
7 are not anticipated by Xia et al. (USPN 7,662,461 or US 2011/0111657.”)
(emphasis added). As discussed above, we have sustained the rejection of
claims 1–4, 6, and 7 as anticipated by Xia ’461.
We, therefore, determine that the Examiner did not reversibly err in
rejecting claims 1–4, 6, and 7 as anticipated by Xia ’657.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7 102 Xia ’461 1–4, 6, 7
1–4, 6, 7 102 Xia ’657 1–4, 6, 7
Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 7
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