Ex Parte Price et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

12971869 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2017)

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