Ex Parte Price et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201712971869 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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. 12/971,869 12/17/2010 Richard Thomas Price 09015S-US-NP 8817 8015 7590 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC. 1937 WEST MAIN STREET STAMFORD, CT 06902 EXAMINER MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/02/2018 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): S tamfordPatent @ solvay.com Cheryle. Telesco @ solvay. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD THOMAS PRICE and ABDEL ABUSAFIEH1 Appeal 2017-00005459 Application 12/971,869 Technology Center 1700 Before: BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Cytec Technology Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-005459 Application 12/971,869 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12, 24, 27, and 28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 12 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 12. A laminate structure comprising a plurality of prepreg plies interleaved with a plurality of metal-coated sheet materials such that each metal-coated sheet material is positioned between adjacent prepreg plies, wherein each metal-coated sheet material comprises a layer of a metal or metal alloy coated on at least one side of a nonwoven veil, said layer of metal or metal alloy having an areal weight of less than 5 gsm, the nonwoven veil comprises carbon fibers, and each prepreg ply comprises reinforcement fibers pre impregnated with a resin, the reinforcement fibers being selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers, graphite fibers, fiberglass fibers, quartz fibers, para-aramid fibers, and combinations thereof. THE REJECTION Claims 12, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (US 2010/0264266 Al; pub. 2 Appeal 2017-005459 Application 12/971,869 Oct. 21, 2010), Ono et al. (US 4,784,899, iss. Nov. 15, 1988, hereinafter “Ono”) and in further view of Simmons et al. (US 2011/0017867 Al, pub. Jan. 27, 2011, hereinafter “Simmons”). ANALYSIS The dispositive issue in this case is whether the applied art, particularly Ono, teaches the claim element of each metal-coated sheet material comprises a layer of a metal or metal alloy coated on at least one side of a nonwoven veil, said layer of metal or metal alloy having an areal weight of less than 5 gsm. It is the Examiner’s position that claim 12 does not require that the metal coating is formed after the nonwoven is formed. Ans. 6. Under this claim interpretation, the Examiner states that the teachings of Ono (coated fibers that are then made into a fabric) render obvious claim 12. Id. at 3, 4, 5, and 6. Appellants argue that Ono teaches use of metal-coated fibers that are used in making electroconductive nonwoven fabric. Ono, col. 5, 11. 12-28. Appeal Br. 6. This is not disputed by the Examiner in the record (as stated, supra). Appellants submit that the claims require a nonwoven veil coated with a layer of metal or metal alloy. Appellants further argue that there is no evidentiary support for linking the amount of metal for metal-coated fibers to the amount of metal on a formed fabric coated with a metal layer, and therefore the Examiner’s calculated value of from 0.01-450 gsm lacks evidentiary support because Ono’s teaching does 3 Appeal 2017-005459 Application 12/971,869 not apply to an amount of metal on a formed fabric coated with a metal layer. Appeal Br. 6-7. We agree with Appellants that the proper claim interpretation of claim 12 requires a nonwoven veil coated with a layer of metal or metal alloy, the layer being a structural element of the claim. This layer is coated on at least one side of the nonwoven veil, wherein the metal or metal alloy layer has an areal weight of less than 5 gsm. Paragraph [0021] of Appellants’ Specification discloses that the layer of metal is applied to one or two sides of the fabric or veil by a physical vapor deposition process. Paragraph [0026] discloses that the layer of metal is applied by a physical or chemical process which coats the sheet material with a very thin layer of metal. Such processes include, but are not limited to, physical vapor deposition (PVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), low pressure CVD, plasma-enhanced CVD or any other suitable process. Paragraph [0027] discloses that the layer of metal may have a thickness between 0.5 pm and 2pm and the areal weight of the metal on the metal-coated sheet material is less than 50 grams per square meter or more preferably is less than 15 grams per square meter. Appellants’ claim 28, which depends from claim 12, requires that the thickness of the layer of metal coated on the veil is between 0.5pm and 2pm. This further shows that a layer of metal is a structural aspect of the laminate structure of claim 12. Most importantly, the Examiner has not made findings sufficient to indicate that Ono’s coated fibers that are used to make the electroconductive nonwoven fabric result in a structure comprising a layer of metal coated on at least one side of a nonwoven veil. We are thus persuaded by Appellants’ stated position in the record, and reverse the rejection. 4 Appeal 2017-005459 Application 12/971,869 DECISION The rejection is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation