SABIC GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2021

2020000662 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2021)

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.
14/913,103 02/19/2016 Cornelis Johannes Gerardus Maria van Peer 11PLAS0114-US-PCT 8866
23413 7590 01/27/2021
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
GRACE, KELSEY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORNELIS JOHANNES GERARDUS MARIA VAN PEER,
SVEN CHRISTIAN HARDEL, and GEERT BOVEN
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 15–18, 20, and 21. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, but we denominate our affirmance of the rejection of
claims 3, 17, and 18 a new ground under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SABIC GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for forming a transparent article.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for forming a transparent article, comprising:
non-contact heating a polymer sheet to form a heated
sheet, wherein the polymer sheet has a thickness of greater than
2.5 mm;
creating a pressure differential across the heated sheet to
push the heated sheet onto a contoured surface of a mold to form
a shaped article; and
releasing the shaped article from the mold;
wherein the shaped article has a difference in thinning
across the shaped article of less than or equal to 35%.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shephard US 3,515,579 June 2,
1970
Sauer US 4,034,054 July 5,
1977
Lai Lai, M.O. and Holt, D.L. (1975), Thickness variation in
the thermoforming of poly(methyl methacrylate) and
high‐impact polystyrene sheets. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 19:
1805–1814. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1975.070190703
1975

REJECTIONS
A. Claims 1, 2, 4–13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer in view of Lai. Final
Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
3
B. Claims 3, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sauer and Lai in view of Shephard.2 Final Act.
8.
OPINION
Rejection A: Claims 1, 2, 4–13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 rejected as obvious over
Sauer in view of Lai
In arguing against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–13, 15,
16, 20, and 21 as obvious over Sauer in view of Lai, Appellant first directs
arguments to all the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 4–5. We select claim 1 as
representative for those arguments. Appellant argues other claims under
separate headings. Appeal Br. 5–7. Thus, we consider those groups
separately.
Claim 1
There is no dispute that Sauer teaches non-contact heating a polymer
sheet, creating a pressure differential across the heated sheet to push it onto a
contoured mold surface, and releasing the resulting shaped article from the
mold. Compare Final Act. 3, with Appeal Br. 4–5.
Further, there is no dispute that Lai discloses thermoforming a
transparent polymer sheet of thickness greater than 2.5 mm. Compare Final
Act. 3, with Appeal Br. 4–5.
What is disputed is the Examiner’s finding of a reason to select the
transparent sheet of Lai’s thickness for use in Sauer’s shaping method with a
reasonable expectation of success of achieving a difference in thinning of
less than or equal to 35%. Compare Final Act. 3., and Ans. 11, with Appeal

2 We add Niebling, Jr. et al., US 5,108,530, issued Apr. 28, 1992.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
4
Br. 4–5. Appellant has not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding.
Both Sauer and Lai are concerned with thermoforming articles from
heated polymer sheets. Compare Sauer col. 1, ll. 6–14, with Lai Synopsis.
What’s more they are both concerned with thickness variation caused by the
thermoforming process. Sauer col. 2, ll. 12–18 and col. 4, ll. 8–14; Lai Title.
Sauer uses a combination of pressure within pressure box 12 and the
movement of a male mold to control the wall thickness and its uniformity.
Sauer col. 4, ll. 8–21.
Lai is primarily concerned with exploring the flow properties of the
polymer composition and its effects on the variation in wall thickness. Lai
Introduction. Lai measures the variation in thickness that results from
thermoforming a sheet using air pressure. Lai Experimentation. In one
process, Lai forms the heated sheet onto a dome-shaped mold. In the other,
the heated sheet is bulged through a rectangular die. Lai Intro. last para. Lai
selects clear poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) as one of the thermoplastic
polymers for the experiments. Lai Materials. There is no dispute Lai
thermoforms a PMMA sheet that is more than 2.5 mm thick as required by
claim 1. Compare Final Act. 3, with Appeal Br. 4–5. Lai thermoforms a
PMMA sheet that is about 0.246 inches (6.25 mm) thick and bulges a
PMMA sheet that is about 0.104 inches (2.6 mm) thick. Lai Table II.
We do not agree with Appellant that Lai teaches a material different
from Sauer. Appeal Br. 5. Sauer discloses many thermoplastic resins may be
used and specifically identifies polymethylmethacrylate as suitable and
adaptable to thermoforming. Sauer col. 2, ll. 41–54. Nor does the evidence
support Appellant’s argument that achieving a thickness differential of
below 35% would be outside the expectation of success. Appeal Br. 5. First,
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
5
35% allows for a fairly high difference in thickness. Second, both Sauer and
Lai are concerned with controlling the forming process to achieve thickness
uniformity and Sauer specifically teaches controlling the air pressure and
mold movement to achieve that control. Under the circumstances, the use of
transparent PMMA of thicknesses within the range of claim 1 to achieve
thermoformed articles with a difference in thinning of less than or equal to
35% follows from the teachings of Sauer and Lai as found by the Examiner.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5
We now turn to the rejection of claims 4 and 5, which Appellant
argues as a separate group. Appeal Br. 5–6. Claims 4 and 5 require the sheet
have a thickness greater than 3.0 mm (claim 4) or in the range of 3–18 mm
(claim 5).
As the Examiner finds, Lai thermoforms sheets of thickness greater
than 3.0 mm. Final Act. 4; Lai Table II.
Appellant does not dispute that Lai teaches using sheets of thickness
in the range of the claims. Appeal Br. 5–6. Instead, Appellant contends that
“achieving difference in thinning of less than 35% from using pressure to
contour to molds sheets having thickness of 3.0 mm or more is not suggested
by the combination of Sauer and Lai.” Appeal Br. 6. According to
Appellant. Lai’s HIP samples, being opaque, are not relevant, and only
Figure 7, which reports the thickness of 2.64 mm PMMA sheet bulged in the
stain-free method of Lai, achieved a difference of thinning of less than 35%.
Appeal Br. 6.
We do not agree that Figure 7 is the only evidence of thickness
uniformity in Lai. Lai states PMMA has superior formability in terms of
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
6
thickness reduction and uniformity. Lai para. bridging 1810–11(discussing
Figs. 5–6). Lai further concludes that “[t]he high degree of uniformity in
thickness that is found in forming plastics is due to the large-strain
hardening capacity of plastics at thermoforming temperatures.” Lai
Conclusion.
As stated by the Examiner, Lai is used as a secondary reference to
support the obviousness of choosing for transparency and size. Ans. 11. The
evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that achieving a difference
in thinning across the shaped article of less than or equal to 35%, a result
desired by the prior art as evidenced by both Sauer and Lai, is a matter of
routine experimentation involving polymer composition and processing
parameters.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 6–8 and 21
Claims 6–8 and 21 limit the temperature at which the sheet is heated.
Claim 6 requires heating the sheet to a temperature range of from greater
than its heat deflection temperature (HDT) to (HDT + 40°C) as determined
by ISO75-2. Claims 7 and 21 narrow the range to from (HDT + 5°C) to
(HDT + 30°C). Claim 8 limits the temperature to 10 to 65°C above the Vicat
softening temperature wherein the Vicat softening temperature B/50 is
determined according to ISO 306 (50 N; 50°C/h).
The issue is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that Sauer discloses heating, with the temperature
being a result effective variable, such that the ordinary artisan would have
arrived at a temperature within the range of these claims in an effort to
optimize the pliability of the sheet?
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
7
Appellant has not identified such an error.
Sauer heats a thermoplastic web or sheet 62 to a softened state by, for
instance, infrared lamps. Sauer col. 3, ll. 46–49. The softening is “to an
optimum forming temperature (i.e., to a stretchable plastic condition).”
Sauer col. 3, ll. 60–64. The use of the word “optimum” evinces that the
forming temperature was understood to be a result-effective variable to be
optimized via routine experimentation. Such evidence of optimization
supports a conclusion of obviousness. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v.
Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The evidence supports the Examiner’s finding and the burden has
shifted to Appellant to show that there is a teaching away or unexpected
results.
Appellant contends that Lai teaches away from variation of the
temperature and the temperature is not a result effective variable. Appeal Br.
6. We disagree. Lai heats the PMMA sheets to temperatures in the range of
150–170°C. Lai Results and Discussion, Axi-Symmetric Domes at 1808. Lai
goes on to state that the forming temperatures had no effect on the thickness
distribution and the shape of the domes. Lai pp. 1808–09. Rather than
teaching away, Lai provides evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art
understood that any temperature in the range of 150 to 170 °C would be
workable for thermoforming PMMA sheet into a dome. Those of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that the workable or optimal range of
temperatures would differ based on the composition of the sheet. What’s
more, there is no evidence that temperatures of 150 to 170 °C fail to
encompass temperatures within the ranges of claims 6–8 and 21.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Sauer discloses heating, with the temperature being a
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
8
result effective variable, such that the ordinary artisan would have arrived at
a temperature within the range of these claims in an effort to optimize the
pliability of the sheet.
Claim 11–13, 20, and 21
Claims 11 and 21 include a wherein clause reading “wherein, without
predrying the polymer sheet, a time for forming the shaped article from the
polymer sheet is less than or equal to 10 minutes.” Claims 12 and 13 depend
from claim 11 and further limit the forming time to 5 and 3 minutes,
respectively. Claim 20 limits heating to dry the sheet to 15 minutes or less.
The Examiner finds that Lai discloses a forming time of on average 6
seconds without predrying. Final Act. 6. Appellant points out that this 6
second forming time follows a 25 minute heating step. Appeal Br. 7. But this
does not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection because the
claims only limit the forming time. The forming time does not including the
heating time. Such a reading of the claims is consistent with the
Specification as the Specification differentiates between the cycle time of
forming and the overall cycle time. Spec. ¶ 29.

Rejection B: Claims 3, 17, and 18 rejected as obvious over Sauer and Lai in
view of Shephard.
In arguing against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 17, and 18 as
obvious over Sauer and Lai in view of Shephard, Appellant first argues the
claims together as a group, argues claims 3 and 18 as a separate group, and
then argues claims 3 and 17 as another separate group.
We consider the claims separately. We sustain the rejection of claims
3, 17, and 18. But in doing so, we further rely on U.S. Patent 5,108,530 to
Niebling, Jr. et al., which is cited within Appellant’s Specification (Spec.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
9
¶ 25). Because the Examiner did not rely on Niebling, we denominate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection under our authority pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) in order to provide Appellant an opportunity to respond.
Claim 17
We consider claim 17 first. Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and
further requires the polymer sheet comprise polycarbonate.
The Examiner recognizes that Sauer does not disclose using a
polycarbonate sheet and turns to Shephard. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant contends that merely because Shephard discloses a
particular material is not a motivation or expectation of success for using
that material in the process of Sauer and even if it were used, the
combination would not meet the requirements of the claim. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because it does not identify a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the substitution of
polycarbonate for one of the materials disclosed by Sauer is more than a
simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results as found by the Examiner. Final Act. 9. We note that Sauer does not
particularly restrict the composition of the sheet. Sauer col. 2, ll. 41–54.
What’s more, Sauer indicates that the family of suitable thermoplastic
compositions was understood to be large. See id. (listing examples that are
“[a]mong the many thermoplastic resins suitable for various purposes and
adaptable to thermoforming”). Appellant’s own Specification discloses that
they use a pressure forming technique disclosed in U.S. Patent 5,108,530 to
Niebling, Jr et al. Niebling discloses thermoforming a polycarbonate sheet.
Niebling col. 5, ll. 20–26. The prior art provides evidence that polycarbonate
was among the compositions known for use in thermoforming.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
10
Although Niebling discloses a preference for thermoforming sheets of
less than 2 mm in thickness, stating that greater sheet thickness frequently
causes embrittlement of the material, this appears to be due to the sharp-
edged contours of Niebling’s shaped article. Niebling col. 5, ll. 4–19. Sauer
adds a male mold to control wall thickness and uniformity of wall thickness.
Sauer col. 4, ll. 8–21. Lai produces a dome shape, a shape without the sharp-
edged contours of Niebling, from a 6 mm thick PMMA sheet. Thus, Lai
evinces that it was known in the art to use thicker sheets to form smoother
contoured shapes. A preponderance of the evidence as a whole supports a
finding that using thicker polycarbonate sheets to form shapes in the
molding process of Sauer and to form shapes such as the domes of Lai
would have been expected to create articles with a difference in thinning of
less than or equal to 35%. Niebling discloses forming deep-drawn shapes
with thickness variation of less than 10%. Niebling col. 8, ll. 62–63
(Example 3). Appellant introduces no convincing objective evidence
indicating that their result is unexpected.
We denominate our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claim
17 as involving a new ground of rejection.
Claims 3 and 18
Claim 3 is limited to forming a polycarbonate article by heating a
transparent polycarbonate sheet to form a heated sheet of a particular
transparency. The sheet also has one of a UV protective coating and an
abrasion-resistant coating. Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and requires the
UV protective coating or abrasion-resistant coating.
Under the heading referring to claims 3 and 18, Appellant contends
that the ordinary skilled artisan would not have used a coated sheet because
“[a] skilled worker would recognize that in heating and conforming
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
11
substantial issues could arise (e.g. difference in thermal expansion, interface
stresses between the base of the sheet and the coating, etc.) that would
prevent success.” This argument is not persuasive because Niebling
specifically suggests using a coated sheet. Niebling col. 5, ll. 20–26. Thus, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the
substitution is of the type that provides predictable results and is, thus,
obvious.
That Appellant presents examples showing that some coated sheets
were not able to be formed using vacuum techniques overlooks the fact that
the references relied on to reject the claims are directed to positive pressure
processes, not vacuum forming. Comparisons to vacuum forming are of no
moment as vacuum forming does not represent the closest prior art. Niebling
is the closest prior art.
We denominate our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3 and 18 as involving a new ground of rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 15–18 20, and 21 is
AFFIRMED. Our affirmance of the rejection of claims 3, 17, and 18 is
denominated a new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 2, 4–
13, 15,
16, 20, 21
103 Sauer, Lai 1, 2, 4–
13, 15,
16, 20, 21

3, 17, 18 103 Sauer, Lai,
Shephard, Niebling
3, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–
13, 15,
16, 20, 21
3, 17, 18

RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .

Appeal 2020-000662
Application 14/913,103
13
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