Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 20212020002837 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021) 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. 15/161,878 05/23/2016 David Grant Midkiff KCX-1759- CON-64481552US02 6066 111049 7590 03/18/2021 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. and KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER FITZSIMMONS, ALLISON GIONTA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1778 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID GRANT MIDKIFF, HEATHER M. RICHMOND, and NINA FRAZIER Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,8781 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 This application is a continuation of Application No. 12/492,276, which was the subject of Appeal No. 2014-005136. The Board in 2014-005136 affirmed the Examiner’s rejections. Parent Application No. 12/492,276 was ultimately abandoned. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kimberly- Clark Worldwide, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,878 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to a laminated web which is useable in filtration media (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A multilayer web comprising: a first layer; and a second layer attached to the first layer, the second layer comprising fibers produced from a polymeric composition comprising a blend of a thermoplastic polymeric component and a functionalized polymeric component, said functionalized polymeric component comprising at least one functional end group and said functionalized polymeric component comprising from 40% to 60% by weight of the polymeric components in the polymeric composition, wherein said functionalized polymeric component provides delamination resistance between the first and second layers. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Myers (US 6,573,205 B1, June 3, 2003) in view of Tse (US 2006/0293424 A1, Dec. 28, 2006). 2. Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Myers in view of Tse, Pike (US 5,721,180, Feb. 24, 1998), and McManus (US 7,642,208 B2, Jan. 5, 2010). 3. Claims 1–14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McManus in view of Tse. Appellant argues the subject matter of claims 1 and 17 (Appeal Br. 4–13). The arguments regarding claim 17 are identical to those made with regard to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12–13). Accordingly, the focus in our decision will be on the subject matter of claim 1. Claims 2–14 and 16–19 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejections of claim 1. Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,878 3 FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Rejections (1) and (2) The Examiner finds that Myers teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for explicitly teaching a functionalized polymer in an amount of 40 to 60% by weight of the polymeric components in the polymeric composition (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner finds that Myers’s teaching to use “0.1 % to about 25%” of telomer (i.e., a functionalized polymer) in the composition would have included the lower range of “26% to 60% as claimed, including 40%” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds that Myers does not specifically define the term “about” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Tse teaches a polymeric material (adhesive material) that may be used to adhere laminates together (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds Tse’s adhesive includes from 1 to 99% of a functionalized polymer component and more particularly 40 to 80% (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds Tse discloses in paragraph 224 the final properties and the suitability of the particular application of the adhesive polymer composition may be altered by changing the type and level of polymer, the presence or absence of additional functionalities and the type and quantity of additives used therein (Final Act. 3). The Examiner find that Tse discloses that the weight percentages of polymer blend and functionalized end groups are result effective variables that would have been optimized to values within the claimed range of 40 to 60% for the functionalized polymer amount (Final Act. 3–4). Appellant argues the rejection is flawed primarily for the following reasons: (1) Myers’s telomer content (0.1 to 25%) does not overlap with the range recited in claim 1 (40 to 60%), (2) Myers’s telomer content is not Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,878 4 close enough to the claimed range to conclude that they would have the same properties, and (3) a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Tse’s teaching with regard to the amount of functional polymer with Myers because doing so is contrary to accepted wisdom that 0.1 to about 25% telomer should be added (Appeal Br. 4–7). We are unpersuaded by these arguments because the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Tse discloses the weight percentages of polymer blend and functionalized end groups are result effective variables (Final Act. 3). The Examiner determines that in light of Tse’s teachings that weight percentages of the polymer blend is a result effective variable, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the amount of functional polymer to a value within the range recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 4). Moreover, Myers discloses that the amount of telomer is “desirably” between 0.1 and 25% by weight (col. 4, ll. 3–8). In other words, the claim is not limited to only that range of telomer. Myers’s teachings coupled with Tse’s disclosure that the weight percentage of the polymer blend is a result effective variable, would have suggested optimizing the amount of functionalized polymer within the range of 40 to 60% to improve adhesion between the layers of the laminate. We affirm the § 103 rejections over Myers and Tse and Myers, Tse, and Pike. Rejection (3) The Examiner finds that McManus teaches the subject matter of claim 1 except for explicitly teaching a functionalized polymer in an amount of 40 to 60% by weight of the polymeric components in the polymeric composition (Final Act. 5). The Examiner makes findings with regard to Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,878 5 McManus’s ranges that are similar to those made regarding Myers (Final Act. 5). As with rejection (1), the Examiner relies on Tse to teach that the weight percentages of polymer blend and functionalized end groups are result effective variables that would have been optimized to values within the claimed range of 40 to 60% (Final Act. 6). Appellant relies on the same or similar arguments made regarding the rejection over Myers and Tse with regard to the rejection over McManus (Appeal Br. 8–12). We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the same reasons raised in our discussion of the rejection over Myers and Tse. We add that McManus, like Myers, also discloses that the range of 0.1 to 25% telomer (i.e., functionalized polymer) is merely desired, not required (col. 6, ll. 2–4). McManus further discloses that a goal of their invention is to form a porous media that is resistant to delamination and abrasive forces during handling and converting (col. 2, ll. 4–7; col. 16, ll. 10-14; Table 1). Incorporating Tse’s adhesive having a functional polymer in an amount as recited in Tse would have contributed to achieving that goal by providing better laminate adhesion (i.e., less delamination). For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over McManus and Tse. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–14, 16 103 Myers, Tse 1–14, 16 Appeal 2020-002837 Application 15/161,878 6 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17–19 103 Myers, Tse, Pike, McManus 17–19 1–14, 16 103 McManus, Tse 1–14, 16 Overall Outcome 1–14, 16–19 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation