Ex parte Ash et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 1998

07965647 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 23, 1992.1
1
Paper No. 20
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CARLTON E. ASH, JON F. GEIBEL
AND HAROLD D. YELTON
______________
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,6471
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and HANLON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 11 and 12. Claim 11 was subsequently
canceled in an amendment filed November 25, 1994, in response
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
The examiner’s answer indicates that “[t]he copy of2
the appealed claims contained in the Appendix to the brief is
correct” (Answer, p.2). However, the copy of claim 12
contained in the Appendix to the brief does not include
amendments thereto filed on February 24, 1994 (Paper No. 8)
and November 25, 1994 (Paper No. 16) and entered by the
examiner. The copy of claim 12 reproduced in this Decision on
Appeal includes these amendments.
The copy of claim 1 reproduced in the Appendix to3
the brief does not include the amendment thereto filed on
February 24, 1994 (Paper No. 8) and entered by the examiner.
The copy of claim 1 reproduced in this Decision on Appeal
includes this amendment.
2
to a new ground of rejection set forth in an examiner’s
answer, leaving only claim 12 for our consideration in this
appeal. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are also pending in the
application but have been indicated as allowable by the
examiner in an advisory action entered March 7, 1994 (Paper
No. 9).
Claim 12 reads as follows:2
12. A poly(arylene sulfide) polymer prepared according
to claim 1 having a melt flow rate in the range of about 2 to
less than 50 g/10 minutes.
For a clearer understanding of the subject matter on
appeal
we also reproduce allowable claim 1:3
1. A process for producing a high molecular weight,
essentially linear poly(arylene sulfide) polymer which
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
In an advisory action entered March 7, 1994, claim4
12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated
by Hoover (see Paper No. 9). However, the rejection was
withdrawn. In an examiner’s answer a new ground of rejection
of claim 12 was entered under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that
rejection is the subject of this appeal. See Paper No. 15.
3
comprises contacting reactants comprising
a) at least one sulfur source,
b) at least one dihaloaromatic compound,
c) a polar organic compound,
d) at least one lithium salt which is soluble in
said polar organic compound, and
e) water in an amount less than about 1.75 moles
water per mole of sulfur in said sulfur source to form a
reaction mixture; then subjecting said reaction mixture to
polymerization conditions sufficient to form said poly(arylene
sulfide) polymer, wherein said polymerization conditions
include polymerization temperatures and polymerization
pressures sufficient to allow reflux conditions to occur
continuously during said polymerization.
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Hoover et al. (Hoover) 5,110,901 May 5, 1992
The sole issue in this appeal is whether claim 12 was
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hoover. After careful consideration of claim 12 on4
appeal, the arguments presented by the appellants in the
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
A reply brief was filed on September 20, 1994 but5
was refused entry as not being in compliance with 37 CFR §
1.193(b). Thus, the arguments presented therein are not
before us in this appeal. See Paper No. 15.
4
brief, the DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.132 filed with
appellants’ brief, and the arguments presented by the examiner
in the answer, we hereby affirm the rejection of claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover.5
The claimed invention
Claim 12 is directed to a poly(arylene sulfide) polymer
prepared according to a particular process and having a melt
flow rate in the range of about 2 to less than 50 g/10
minutes. The process comprises contacting (a) at least one
sulfur source, (b) at least one dihaloaromatic compound, (c) a
polar organic compound, (d) at least one lithium salt which is
soluble in the polar organic compound, and (e) a specific
amount of water to form a reaction mixture and subjecting the
reaction mixture to polymerization conditions sufficient to
form the poly(arylene sulfide) polymer. The poly(arylene
sulfide) polymers produced according to this process are said
to be “essentially linear” (Specification p.3, line 35-p.4,
line 10).
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
5
Rejection of claim 12
Hoover discloses high molecular weight arylene sulfide
polymers and two methods of preparing these polymers. The
first method disclosed in Hoover comprises contacting, in a
polymeri-zation mixture, reactants comprising (col. 5, lines
40-46):
(a) an alkali metal sulfide (compare col. 6, lines 16-20
with appellants’ specification p.3, lines 10-14);
(b) a monomer source which comprises at least one
dihaloaromatic compound (compare col. 7, line 38-col. 8, line
2 with appellants’ specification p.2, line 11-p.3, line 3);
(c) an organic amide (compare col. 6, lines 56-68 with
appellants’ specification p.3, lines 20-29);
(d) an alkali metal carboxylate (compare col. 7, lines 1-
29 with appellants’ specification, p.3, lines 30-34); and
(e) water (compare col. 3, line 68-col. 4, line 3 (“the
total amount of water present during the polymerization
process ranges from about 1.02 mole to about 2.1 moles for
each mole of sulfur present in the resulting resin”) with
appellants’ claim 12 (“water in an amount less than about 1.75
moles water per mole of sulfur”)).
Thus, Hoover and appellants contact substantially the same
reactants in a polymerization mixture to produce arylene
sulfide polymers.
As correctly pointed out by the examiner, the arylene
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
6
sulfide polymers disclosed in Hoover have melt flow values
preferably ranging from about 5 to about 700 g/10 min., and
more preferably, ranging from about 10 to about 500 g/10 min.
(col. 10, lines 6-11). Compare appellants’ specification p.4,
lines 11-14 (“The poly(arylene sulfide) polymers prepared
according to the invention process generally exhibit melt flow
values (rates) in the range of 2-700 g/10 min.”). However,
relying on Examples I and II disclosed in Hoover, appellants
argue that Hoover does not disclose “essentially linear”
arylene sulfide polymers having a melt flow rate within the
range recited in claim 12.
The method disclosed in Example II, illustrating the
method outlined above, is said to produce an “essentially
linear” arylene sulfide polymer which exhibits a melt flow
rate of 401 g/10 minutes. In comparison, the method disclosed
in Hoover Example I, wherein the monomer source (b) comprises
a mixture
of at least one dihaloaromatic compound and at least one
polyhaloaromatic compound, is said to produce a “branched”
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
7
polymer which exhibits a melt flow rate of 51 g/10 minutes.
Hoover recognizes that (col. 15, lines 59-66):
When comparing the data of Resin 3 [melt flow
rate: 401 g/10 min.] and Resin 4 [melt flow rate:
356 g/10 min.], as recorded in Table II, it can
clearly be seen that, while employing relatively
small amounts of sodium acetate and controlling the
level of water present during polymerization,
produces a polymer with flow rate very similar to
that of Resin 4, this same process results in
increasing the Resin’s bulk density by approximately
52% compared to that of Resin 4.
Compare appellants’ specification p.15, Example IX and Table
VII (comparison of flow rates establishes that amount of water
present during polymerization effects flow rate).
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that (Answer, pp.5-
6):
Hoover et al. teaches that it is known to lower the
melt flow value by varying the amount of sodium
acetate and controlling the level of water present
during polymerization . . . . It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to lower the melt
flow value to less than 50g/min, as taught by Hoover
in order to increase or decrease the bulk density as
desired.
Compare In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980)(“discovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the
skill of the art”). Appellants have failed to establish
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
8
otherwise. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[a]fter a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established, the burden of going forward
shifts to the applicant”).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
9
Richmond, Phillips,
Hitchcock & Carver
P. O. Box 2443
Bartlesville, OK 74005
ALH/cam
Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
10