2020005698 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021)

ZEON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 8, 2021

2020005698 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 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. 14/650,984 06/10/2015 Takahisa IWAHORI 1248-1615PUS1 7905 2292 7590 10/08/2021 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 EXAMINER VO, HAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1788 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/08/2021 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKAHISA IWAHORI and YUYA KITAGAWA Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–16, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “ZEON CORPORATION.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vinyl chloride resin composition for powder molding, comprising: 100 parts by mass of (a) vinyl chloride resin particles having an average polymerization degree of 2300 to 4100; and 100 parts by mass to 200 parts by mass of (b) a plasticizer containing a trimellitate plasticizer and a pyromellitate plasticizer, wherein the plasticizer (b) contains 65 parts by mass to 165 parts by mass of the trimellitate plasticizer, and 35 parts by mass to 135 parts by mass of the pyromellitate plasticizer, provided that a total amount of the plasticizer (b) remains in a range of 100 to 200 parts by mass, wherein a plasticizer other than the trimellitate plasticizer and the pyromellitate plasticizer is contained in the plasticizer (b) in a total amount of not more than 3.6% by mass. Appeal Br. 1 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Godwin US 4,543,420 Sept. 24, 1985 Igarashi US 5,310,805 May 10, 1994 Mitsudera US 2006/0052517 A1 Mar. 9, 2006 Hada US 2010/0272984 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 JP 448 (as translated) JP 61-235448 A Oct. 20, 1986 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12– 16, 18 103 Hada, JP 448, Igarashi 7–9 103 Hada, JP 448, Igarashi, Mitsudera Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 3 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12– 16, 18 103 Hada, Goodwin, Igarashi 7–9 103 Hada, Goodwin, Igarashi, Mitsudera OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Obviousness Rejection over Hada, JP 448, & Igarashi Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 12 because Igarashi “does not disclose or suggest the claimed feature of ‘a plasticizer other than the trimellitate plasticizer and the pyromellitate plasticizer is contained in the plasticizer (b) in a total amount of not more than 3.6% bv mass.’” Appeal Br. 10–11. This is because, according to Appellant, although Igarashi generally mentions a trimellitate plasticizer, Igarashi does not disclose its concentration within the composition, and thus Igarashi does not teach or suggest the presently claimed content of ‘a total 2 Appellant does not separately argue for claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–16, and 18 with respect to the rejection over Hada, JP 448, and Igarashi. See Appeal Br. 7–11. These claims stand or fall together with claim 1 with respect to the rejection over Hada, JP 448, and Igarashi. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 4 amount of not more than 3.6% by mass.’” Appeal Br. 13. Further according toAppellant, Igarashi’s Examples section only discloses a composition having plasticizer di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate and epoxidized soybean oil and therefore the amount of a plasticizer other than the trimellitate plasticizer and the pyromellitate plasticizer is 100% by mass in the Examples. Appeal Br. 10. Thus, according to Appellant, neither the general discussion nor the examples support the Examiner’s finding that Igarashi discloses or suggests limiting the other plasticizers to amounts of no more than 3.6% by mass. Because claim 1 does not necessarily require a plasticizer other than the recited trimellitate plasticizer and pyromellitate plasticizer, and Igarashi suggests other plasticizers are optional, the Examiner concludes the plasticizer combination of claim 1 is taught or suggested by the combined prior art teaching. Ans. 12 (finding that the phrase “may be used” when referring to epoxy and polyester plasticizer implies that the epoxy plasticizer can be excluded and therefore “its amount of 0% by mass meet[s] the claimed amount of not more than 3.6% by mass”). Appellant does not respond to this aspect of the obviousness analysis. No error has therefore been identified here. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, Igarashi teaches that the trimellitate plasticizer and the pyromellitate plasticizer “may be used singly or as a mixture of two or more of them” and that “[o]nly a small amount of an epoxy plasticizer and a polyester plasticizer may be used along with them.” Ans. 12 (citing Igarashi 3:27–30). The Examiner accordingly reasons that “the passage implies that the plasticizer can include trimellitate plasticizer in majority in combination with epoxy plasticizer” and calculates an amount of plasticizer other than the trimellitate plasticizer and the Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 5 pyromellitate plasticizer to be 3.2% by mass. Id.; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). Appellant does not dispute these findings by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 10–11. The Examiner’s findings are supported by evidence in the record and the obviousness rejection is therefore sustained. Obviousness Rejection over Hada, Goodwin, & Igarashi Appellant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claim 13 over Hada, Goodwin, and Igarashi mirror those raised for the rejection over Hada, JP 448, and Igarashi. See Appeal Br. 13–14 (arguing that Igarashi “does not disclose or suggest a content of the trimellitate plasticizer in the composition, and thus does not teach or suggest the presently claimed content of ‘a total amount of not more than 3.6% by mass’” and that the total plasticizer other than trimellitate and pyromellitate is 100% by mass). We sustain the rejection over Hada, Goodwin, and Igarashi for the reasons detailed supra. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. 3 Appellant does not separately argue for claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–16, and 18 with respect to the rejection over Hada, Goodwin, and Igarashi. See Appeal Br. 11–15. These claims stand or fall together with claim 1 with respect to the rejection over Hada, Goodwin, and Igarashi. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-005698 Application 14/650,984 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12–16, 18 103 Hada, JP 448, Igarashi 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12–16, 18 7–9 103 Hada, JP 448, Igarashi, Mitsudera 7–9 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12–16, 18 103 Hada, Goodwin, Igarashi 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 12–16, 18 7–9 103 Hada, Goodwin, Igarashi, Mitsudera 7–9 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–10, 12–16, 18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED