Ex Parte Zheng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201814471008 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/471,008 08/28/2014 Yun Zheng 23413 7590 06/21/2018 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13PLAS0035-US-CIP 5024 EXAMINER RODD, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2018 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUN ZHENG, YUNAN CHENG, and SHIJIE SONG Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 1 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant seeks our review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, SABIC Global Technologies B.V., which is also identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter on appeal concerns flame retardant compositions, methods of preparing such compositions, and articles made therefrom. Claims 1, 23, and 25. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A flame retardant composition comprising: a polycarbonate; 5 to 10 weight percent of a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer; where the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer comprises an amount of greater than 10 weight percent of the polysiloxane and where the weight average molecular weight of the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer is greater than or equal to 25,000 grams per mole; 5 to 20 weight percent of a branched polycarbonate; 5 to 60 weight percent of a reinforcing filler; and 1 to 15 weight percent of a flame retardant compound; where all weight percents are based on the total weight of the flame retardant composition; where the flame retardant composition displays a notched Izod impact strength of90 to 300 Joules per meter when measured as per ASTM D256. Br. 12. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Charati2 in view of Siripurapu3 and Kawai. 4 Final Act. 3-8. Claims 4, 6-8, 10, and 14--19 are likewise rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over these references in combination with other references. Final Act. 8-14. 2 US 2007/0149661 Al published June 28, 2007. 3 US 2006/0205848 Al published September 14, 2006. 4 WO 2011/I49030Al, published December 1, 2011 (US 2013/0066002 Al published March 14, 2013, as translated). 2 Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 Appellant presents arguments only with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, and 20-25, so we need only address this rejection. See Br. 7. Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds that Charati discloses the claimed flame retardant composition with the exception of the following limitations: (a) the structural properties of the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer, and (b) the presence of a branched polycarbonate in an amount of 5 to 20% by weight. Final Act. 3---6. To address deficiency (a), the Examiner relies on Siripurapu for its disclosure of polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer PC-ST- I having flame retardant properties, where the copolymer contains "greater than 10 weight percent of the polysiloxane" (i.e., 20%), and has a molecular weight that "is greater than or equal to 25,000 grams per mole" (i.e., 30,000 g/mol). Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that, because "Siripurapu suggests in i-f[0036] too low amounts of polysiloxane [i.e., "less than about 8%"] in the copolymer may not have adequate flame retardancy," the skilled artisan would have selected "higher weight percents of polysiloxane in the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer of Charati in order to ensure adequate flame retardancy." Final Act. 4. To address deficiency (b ), the Examiner finds that Kawai discloses that "the addition of 10 to 100 parts by mass of branched polycarbonate to the polycarbonate portion of a thin walled molding composition [has] an effect on thin-walled flame retardancy." Final Act. 6. Based on this disclosure, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to have "substitute[ d] 10 to 100 parts of the exemplified polycarbonate of Charati with a branched polycarbonate ... for the advantage of effecting thin walled flame retardancy as suggested by Kawai." Final Act. 6. Thus, because Charati' s Sample 2 contains 46% 3 Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 polycarbonate, the Examiner determines that Kawai's disclosure would have reasonably suggested compositions having from 4.7 5 to 46% branched polycarbonate which overlaps the recited range. Final Act. 6. OPINION We have considered Appellant's arguments (Br. 7-10) and are unpersuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of the appealed claims based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well- expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following. Several of Appellant's arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the underlying basis of the rejection. For example, Appellant urges that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated "to add a polysiloxane- polycarbonate ... having flame retardant properties because there is no teaching in Charati that the flame retardant used is inadequate." Br. 9 ( emphasis added). Furthermore, Appellant argues that "Charati teaches away from using additional flame retardants by stating the desire to minimize the amount of flame retardant used." Id. (emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly notes, however, the rejection does not propose the "adding of additional flame retardants" to Charati's composition. Ans. 14. 5 It seems to us that the Examiner harmlessly miscalculated this minimum suggested value of branched polycarbonate as 4.7 weight percent. We believe the calculation should instead read 4.6-46 weight percent branched polycarbonate (i.e., 10- 100 parts of Charati's Sample 2 composition containing 46% polycarbonate.) 4 Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 Rather, the underlying rejection proposes substituting the polysiloxane- polycarbonate copolymer disclosed in Charati for the polysiloxane- polycarbonate copolymer exemplified by Siripurapu. Final Act. 4. As such, Appellant's arguments do not squarely address the rejection and are, therefore, not persuasive of reversible error. We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Charati teaches away from the claimed subject matter in view of a stated "desire to minimize the amount of flame retardant used." Br. 9, 10. In support of this argument, Appellant points to paragraph 11 of Charati. Our review of the cited paragraph reveals no language regarding minimizing the amount of flame retardant as Appellant contends. Rather, this passage of Charati teaches that amounts of a flame retardant composition equal to or exceeding 10% of the overall composition "causes a decrease in the impact properties of the composition and a reduction in the heat distortion temperature." Such a disclosure is not deemed to be a teaching away from the subject matter of claim 1 which allows for "1 to 15 weight percent of a flame retardant compound." Moreover, the Examiner finds that Charati expressly discloses an embodiment with a flame retardant component bisphenol A bis( diphenyl phosphate), i.e., "BP ADP," in an amount of 6% which falls squarely within the claimed range. Final Act. 3. We are also not persuaded of reversible error by Appellant's arguments regarding certain alleged "impact properties" of the claimed composition based on the data contained in the Specification at Tables 4 and 5. Br. 10. Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's rationale as set forth at pages 17-21 of the Answer regarding the insufficiency of Appellant's data. We furthermore emphasize that Appellant does not 5 Appeal2017-008626 Application 14/471,008 challenge the Examiner's position set forth in the Answer regarding Appellant's data, i.e., no Reply Brief was filed. For these reasons, and those expressed by the Examiner, the rejections are affirmed. DECISION The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation