Dow Global Technologies LLC et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2020001494 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
15/118,175 08/11/2016 Rajasingh Solomon Thomas Udhaya Singh 75843-US-PCT 1399
109 7590 12/28/2020
The Dow Chemical Company
P.O. BOX 1967
2211 H.H. Dow Way
Midland, MI 48674
EXAMINER
DILLON, DANIEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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):
FFUIMPC@dow.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAJASINGH SOLOMON THOMAS UDHAYA SINGH,
ALEXANDER WILLIAMSON, EDWARD E. LAFLEUR,
SEKHAR SUNDARAM, XINYU GU, DEBKUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,
and HIMAL RAY

Appeal 2020-001494
Application 15/118,175
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 13, and 14. Claims 11 and 12 are
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. 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 the real party in interest as Dow Global
Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001494
Application 15/118,175

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to matte polyolefin films which are
useful for packaging applications. The matte films comprise a base layer
and a skin layer (Spec. 1:9–11; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A film comprising:
a) at least one base layer comprising a thermoplastic
polymeric matrix material; and
b) a skin layer comprising a thermoplastic polymeric
matrix material and from 5 wt % to 80 wt % of polymeric
particles having an average particle diameter from 0.5 μm to
15 μm, a refractive index from 1.46 to 1.7, and at least 60 mole
% of acrylic monomer units,
wherein the film is stretched by a factor of 2 to 8
uniaxially or biaxially, and wherein after stretching, the skin
layer has a thickness that is between 50% and 200% of the
diameter of the polymeric particles.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1–10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sperlich (EP 1518887 A1, Mar. 30, 2005 (as translated))
in view of Chen (US 2016/0017133 A1, Jan. 21, 2016).

Appellant argues the subject matter of claim 1 only (Appeal Br. 4–5).
Claims 2–10, 13, and 14 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection
of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 over Sperlich in view of Chen is located on pages 3 to 4
of the Final Office Action. The Examiner finds that Sperlich discloses a
matte packaging material that meet the limitations of claim 1, except for the
Appeal 2020-001494
Application 15/118,175

3
limitation that recites “5 wt% to 80 wt% of polymeric particles having an
average particle diameter from 0.5 to 15 microns, a refractive index from
1.46 to 1.7, and at least 60 mol% of acrylic monomer units” and the
limitation “the matte layer having a thickness that is between 50% and 200%
of the diameter of the polymeric particles after stretching” (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches a polyolefin film used in packaging
comprising from 1 to 50 wt% of polymeric particles having an average
particle diameter of 0.5 to 15 microns, a refractive index from 1.46 to 1.7,
and at least 60 mol% of acrylic monomer units having enhanced opacity
which is useful for packaging applications (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to form the films taught by
Sperlich to include Chen’s teachings regarding the weight percent polymeric
particles, particle size, refractive index, and mole percent acrylic monomer
in order to impart the films of Sperlich with enhanced opacity which is
useful in packaging applications (Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Sperlich’s film with Chen’s teachings (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant
contends Sperlich teaches that the essential features of the film are the non-
homogeneously miscible polymers of the matte layer and the high content of
particulate additives (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues that Sperlich adds the
particles to enhance scratch resistance of the matte layer and provide an anti-
blocking and anti-cracking purpose in the film (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant
contends Sperlich teaches the non-miscible polymers produce the matte
effect of the layer and the particulates additives do not contribute to the
matte effect of the film (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues that based on
Sperlich’s teachings a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
Appeal 2020-001494
Application 15/118,175

4
combined Chen’s particles with Sperlich’s film to improve the matte effect
of the film (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant contends that Chen’s particles are
unrelated with regard to improving the anti-blocking and anti-cracking
properties of Sperlich’s film (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant’s arguments do not address or otherwise show reversible
error in the Examiner’s basis for combining Chen’s particles with Sperlich’s
films: to enhance the opacity of Sperlich’s films (Final Act. 4; Ans. 9–10).
As the Examiner finds, Chen and Sperlich are each directed to packaging
films (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that Sperlich’s film would have
benefited from an increase in opacity by using Chen’s particles in an amount
and having properties that satisfy the claim limitations (Final Act. 3–4; Ans.
9–10). Appellant’s argument has not shown reversible error in the
Examiner’s stated rejection.
Appellant argues that Sperlich’s teaching in paragraph 10 regarding
the anti-blocking and anti-cracking properties imparted by particles to the
film would not have provided a basis for adding Chen’s opacity increasing
particles (Reply Br. 2–3). Appellant contends that the Examiner too broadly
interprets Sperlich’s disclosure that “among other things” the particles add
anti-blocking and anti-cracking properties to the film would have allowed
adding particles to impart un-recited properties to Sperlich’s film (Reply Br.
2–3; Ans. 8–9; Sperlich ¶ 10).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Sperlich teaches that
“[i]n principle, all organic materials (for example crosslinked acrylate
particulates) and inorganic materials which are dispersible in particle form in
a plastic matrix are suitable” (¶ 10). In other words, Sperlich does not teach
away from or discourage the use of Chen’s polymer, opacifying particles.
Appeal 2020-001494
Application 15/118,175

5
Indeed, it appears that Chen’s polymeric particles would be suitable for
Sperlich’s film in light of Sperlich’s disclosure that all organic materials that
are dispersible in particle form in a plastic matrix are suitable in Sperlich’s
film (¶ 10). In light these findings, the Examiner correctly finds that
Sperlich’s disclosure that “[a]mong other things, all particulate additives
which are commonly used as particulate antiblocking agents in plastic films
are suitable” is not limited to only antiblocking agents. Rather, Sperlich’s
disclosure in paragraph 10 teaches that all organic particles dispersible in a
plastic matrix are suitable with a preference for particulate antiblocking
agents. In other words, we find that Sperlich does not teach away from or
discourage the use of Chen’s polymeric opacifying particles.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–
10, 13, and 14 over Sperlich and Chen.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13, 14 103 Sperlich, Chen 1–10, 13,
14

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