Ex Parte AllenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 201714193353 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2017) 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. 14/193,353 02/28/2014 Kathy Allen BMS132016US 6802 157 7590 Covestro LLC 1 Covestro Circle PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 EXAMINER CHANG, JOSEPHINE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1768 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2017 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): 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 KATHY ALLEN1 (Applicant: COVESTRO LLC) Appeal 2017-003823 Application 14/193,353 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Covestro LLC. Appeal 2017-003823 Application 14/193,353 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: Claim 1. A two-component waterborne coating system comprising: (A) a binder component comprising: (Al) an aqueous dispersion of a hydroxy-functional polyacrylic polyol; (A2) optionally an aqueous dispersion of a non functional polyurethane; and (A3) rubber particles having an average particle size no larger than 100 microns; and (B) a crosslinker component comprising a water- dispersible sulfonic acid-modified polyisocyanate; wherein a coating composition comprising component (A) and component (B) forms a cured polyurethane film exhibiting no greater than a 2 rating determined in accordance with GMW14445. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Munzmay et al. Czomij et. al. Allen et al. US 2004/0242765 Al US 2008/0075952 Al US 2010/0233431 Al Dec. 2, 2004 Mar. 27, 2008 Sept. 16,2010 2 Appeal 2017-003823 Application 14/193,353 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1—8 and 21—28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Czomij. 2. Claims 1—28 are alternatively rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Czomij and Munzmay. ANALYSIS To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and we affirm the rejections of all claims on appeal. Rejections 1 and 2 We agree with the Examiner that Appellant does not squarely address each rejection of record because Appellant addresses the Allen reference only, rather than the combination of art references as applied in the 3 Appeal 2017-003823 Application 14/193,353 rejections. Appeal Br. 9, 15, and 16. As the Examiner correctly states on pages 12—14 of the Answer, Appellant does not argue the rejections as presented in the record, but only discusses the Allen reference. As such, Appellant’s arguments do not address squarely what the combined teachings of the applied art (for each of Rejections 1 and 2) would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). In view of the above, we therefore affirm Rejections 1 and 2. DECISION Each rejection is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation