UMG ABS, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15448727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
15/448,727 03/03/2017 Shinji YAMASHITA 61-1075 4460
36163 7590 10/01/2020
PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC
6710A Rockledge Drive
SUITE 400
BETHESDA, MD 20817
EXAMINER
KAUCHER, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
mail@plumsea.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHINJI YAMASHITA and HIROSHI SAKAI
____________

Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, 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 rejecting claims 1–6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies UMG ABS, LTD. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a thermoplastic resin composition and molded
articles formed therefrom. Spec. 1. Claim 1, the only independent claim on
appeal, reads as follows:
1. A thermoplastic resin composition comprising:
25 to 50 parts by mass of a rubber-containing graft
copolymer (A) obtained by copolymerizing a monomer mixture
comprising an aromatic vinyl compound and a vinyl cyanide
compound in presence of a diene-based rubber-like polymer,
and
50 to 75 parts by mass of a hard copolymer mixture (B)
comprising a hard copolymer (B-I) and a hard copolymer (B-
II), wherein
the rubber-containing graft copolymer (A) comprises a
hard copolymer component (A') in which the aromatic vinyl
compound and the vinyl cyanide compound are grafted to the
diene-based rubber-like polymer,
a weight-average molecular weight of the hard
copolymer component (A') is from 50,000 to 200,000,
an amount of the hard copolymer (B-II) in the hard
copolymer mixture (B) is at least 5% by mass but less than 20%
by mass,
the hard copolymer (B-I) is a polymer comprising
monomer units derived from the aromatic vinyl compound and
monomer units derived from the vinyl cyanide compound, and
has a weight-average molecular weight of 50,000 to 150,000,
wherein 25 to 32% by mass of a total mass of the hard
copolymer (B-I) is composed of monomer units derived from
the vinyl cyanide compound, and
the hard copolymer (B-II) is a polymer comprising
monomer units derived from the aromatic vinyl compound and
monomer units derived from the vinyl cyanide compound, and
has a weight-average molecular weight of 50,000 to 150,000,
wherein 35 to 50% by mass of a total mass of the hard
copolymer (B-II) is composed of monomer units derived from
the vinyl cyanide compound.
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

3
Appeal Br. 38–39 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight key
disputed recitations).

REJECTION
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Takashi,2 Dion,3 and Scheirs.4

OPINION
Appellant argues only claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–37. We focus our
remarks on Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 1. Each of claims 2–6
stands or falls with claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds
Takashi discloses a thermoplastic resin composition that meets all the
recitations in claim 1, except Takashi is silent regarding the weight-average
molecular weight of the various polymer components. Final Act. 2–3. See
Takashi ¶ 84 (identifying graft copolymer I-2 formed from acrylonitrile,
butadiene, and styrene (“ABS”)); id. ¶ 90 (identifying copolymer system II-1
formed from styrene and acrylonitrile (“SAN”) with 26 wt. % average vinyl
cyanide content); id. ¶ 94 (identifying copolymer system III-2 formed from
SAN with 38 wt. % average vinyl cyanide content); id. at Table 1,
composition 3 (formulated from components I-2, II-1, and III-2). The
Examiner finds Dion teaches a weight-average molecular weight range of
50,000–130,000 as suitable for styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer components

2 JP 2013-199520 A, published October 3, 2013, as translated.
3 US 5,955,540, issued September 21, 1999.
4 Modern Styrenic Polymers: Polystyrenes and Styrenic Copolymers 3–757
(John Scheirs & Duane B. Priddy eds., 2003).
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

4
in graft ABS resin compositions. Final Act. 3. The Examiner additionally
finds Scheirs teaches increasing styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer molecular
weight improves toughness and solvent resistance but worsens cost and
processability. Id. at 3–4. In light of the foregoing teachings in the prior art,
the Examiner determines one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to
select weight-average molecular weights within the recited range of 50,000–
150,000 for Takashi’s styrene/acrylonitrile components II-1 and III-2. Id.
Appellant argues the claimed composition suppresses the absorption
effect (Appeal Br. 12), and contends the relied-upon prior art references “are
silent with regard to suppressing the absorption phenomenon” (id. at 13).
Appellant also argues “Dion does not disclose that the molecular weights of
A', B-I, and B-II of the pending claim are an important feature and should be
50,000 to 130,000 for similar polymers,” and “does not teach similar
compositions of ABS and SAN.” Id. at 16 (internal quotations and emphasis
omitted). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
lacks any recitation of absorption effect. Moreover, the prior art need not
supply the same reason as that of Appellant for providing Takashi’s SAN
components with a molecular weight within the recited range. Contrary to
Appellant’s contention, Dion expressly states that molecular weight of both
grafted and ungrafted SAN components in an ABS polymer composition is
important and should be from about 50,000–130,000, with a preferred range
of about 80,000 to about 120,000. Dion 7:20–30. As such, a preponderance
of evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Dion would have provided
a reason to select a molecular weight within the recited range for each of the
SAN components in Takashi’s ABS polymer composition.
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

5
Appellant further argues that Dion’s product concerns a multi-modal
polymer and, for that reason, differs from Takashi’s product such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Dion for a molecular
weight. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Both
Takashi and Dion disclose grafted-rubber styrene polymer compositions for
use in connection with automobiles and household appliances. See Takashi
¶ 2; Dion 1:22–29. Particularly, both Takashi and Dion disclose
compositions formulated from grafted ABS and SAN. Takashi ¶ 13; Dion
2:50–3:31. Appellant does not explain why the fact that Dion describes
multiple particle sizes for the graft ABS component would have precluded
one of ordinary skill from considering Dion’s teachings regarding molecular
weight of the SAN component.
Appellant also argues Takashi’s silence regarding molecular weight of
SAN in the ABS/SAN composition suggests “that molecular weight is not
important and the skilled practitioner would not look to Dion, or any other
reference, to supply a molecular weight range.” Appeal Br. 21. To the
contrary, Takashi’s silence on the point is evidence of a reason to have
looked to other ABS/SAN compositions for the missing property.5

5 Appellant additionally argues Scheirs identifies a typical molecular weight
range for SAN copolymers but does not teach whether molecular weight or
acrylonitrile content can be used to suppress absorption phenomenon.
Appeal Br. 21–22. The Examiner’s reliance on Scheirs is cumulative to the
teachings of Dion. Because we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that Dion would have supplied a reason to provide
Takashi’s SAN components with molecular weights within the recited range,
Appellant’s arguments that Scheirs fails to supply such reason are not
persuasive of error.
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

6
Appellant contends Dion’s composition includes only a single
nongrafted copolymer, and therefore does not provide a teaching regarding
molecular weight for two components, such as B-I and B-II recited in claim
1. Appeal Br. 22–23. We disagree. Dion identifies a composition including
ungrafted monovinylidene aromatic/ethylenically unsaturated copolymer
having a molecular weight preferably in the range of about 80,000 to about
120,000. Dion 7:20–30. That composition is compounded with another
monovinylidene aromatic monomer (id. 8:53–61), which preferably has a
molecular weight in the range of 75,000–115,000 (id. 9:22–28). Thus, Dion
discloses two nongrafted polymer components. Even if Dion were viewed
as providing only a single nongrafted SAN copolymer, the Examiner relies
on Takashi for teaching two SAN components.
Appellant points to examples and comparative examples reported in
the Specification as evidence that compositions comprising B-I and B-II
copolymer components with molecular weight outside the recited range, or
acrylonitrile content outside the recited range, yielded unsatisfactory
properties. Appeal Br. 24–29, 33–35; Reply Br. 11–16. Appellant also
argues neither Takashi nor Dion recognizes an improvement in both
absorption and fluidity by using the recited SAN components. Appeal
Br. 27–31. Appellant’s arguments, however, do not reveal error where, as
here, the prior art teaches both molecular weight and acrylonitrile content
values that are within the recited ranges.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuasively
demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination
with regard to claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue any other claim.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6.
Appeal 2019-004025
Application 15/448,727

7

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 103 Takashi, Dion,
Scheirs
1–6

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED