Ex Parte Bashir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

12988737 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/988,737 12/21/2010
102091 7590 07/27/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas
20 Church Street
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zahir Bashir
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10139-US-PCT 3934
EXAMINER
WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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 ZAHIR BASHIR, 1
Ian Macmillian Ward, Glen Peter Thompson, and
Anthony Paul Unwin
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Zahir Bashir, Ian Macmillian Ward, Glen Peter Thompson, and
Anthony Paul Unwin ("Sabic") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 19, 22-27, and 29. 3 We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Sabic Innovative Plastics IP B.V.
("Sabic"). (Appeal Brief, filed 28 March 2014 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Office action mailed 28 October 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
3 Remaining copending claims 18 and 28 have been indicated allowable by
Examiner (FR 8) and are not before us.
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
A. Introduction4
OPfNION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for preparing an
opaque and glossy film from a thermoplastic polyester composition (Spec. 1,
11. 1-2). Suitable polyesters used in the process include at least one
crystallizable polyester, e.g., polyethylene terephthalate ("PET") (id. at 5,
11. 8-28). According to the '737 Specification, the "opaque film" obtained
from the process is "a film that is not transparent or [is] impenetrable to
human sight, and which has a white or whitish colour if made from a
thermoplastic polyester composition of natural colour" (id. at 2, 11. 2-5).
Such films are said to have a density in the range of 500-1300 kg/m3 (id. at
13, 11. 1-2). "The reduced density and opaque appearance appear to have
resulted from small voids that are formed during the drawing process in the
film" (id. at 13, 11. 1-5).
The claimed process comprises a first step of extruding the
thermoplastic polyester composition through a slot die, followed by
quenching (rapidly cooling) the extruded material to form a substantially
amorphous film having a crystallinity of at most 5% (id. at 3, 11. 24--34).
Next, the amorphous film is heated to a drawing temperature in the range
from T g to (T g + 50) °C while drawing the film at a rate of at least 1 m/min
in a longitudinal direction to a draw ratio in the range of 5.1 to 5.7 to form
4 Application 12/988,737, Process for Making Opaque Polyester Film,
filed 20 October 2010, is the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of
PCT /EP2009/002986, filed 20 April 2009, and claims the benefit of EP
08007913.0, filed 24 April 2008. We refer to the '"737 Specification,"
which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
an oriented film showing stress-whitening (id. at 4, 11. 1-2; 5, 11. 10-15).
The amorphous film can be heated by, for example, immersing the
amorphous film in a liquid heating bath to the desired draw temperature (id.
at 9, 11. 8-20). In order to control variations in the draw ratio, the amorphous
film can be guided first over a set of feed rollers and then over a set of draw
rollers operated at higher speed than the feed rollers with heating of the film
(id. at 1, 11. 1---6). Alternatively, the amorphous film can pass through, for
instance, a water bath at 82 °C, between the feed and draw rollers (id. at 17,
1. 30, to 18, 1. 1 ). The process concludes with heat-setting the oriented
stress-whitened film (id. at 4, 11. 1-2; 5, 11. 10-15).
The film is advantageously used, for example, for packaging or
lamination (id. at 3, 11. 8-11; 13, 11. 15-20). According to the Specification,
a further advantage is that the process results in a glossy opaque film without
the use of opacifying agents or void-inducing additives, i.e., the film
contains no significant amounts of pigment or other mineral particles or
dispersed incompatible polymers acting as initiators for voiding (id. at 4, 11.
17-30). The Specification reveals that the film "has very good mechanical
properties; typically its tensile properties, like tensile strength and modulus,
are similar to those of a corresponding transparent film made from the same
polyester composition with a conventional drawing process" (id. at 13, 11. 5-
11 ).
3
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
Representative Claim 1 reads:
A process for making an opaque and glossy film from a
thermoplastic polyester composition, comprising the steps of
a) extruding the polyester composition through a slot die, and
quenching to form a substantially amorphous film having a
crystallinity of at most 5%;
b) heating the amorphous film to a drawing temperature in
the range from Tg to (Tg + 50) °C while applying a draw
ratio in the range of 5.1 to 5. 7 in longitudinal direction, and
a drawing rate of at least 1 m/min to form an oriented film
showing stress-whitening; and
c) heat-setting the oriented stress-whitened film;
wherein the thermoplastic polyester composition
comprises 95 mass% or more of at least one crystallisable
polyester derived from at least one aliphatic diol and at least
one aromatic dicarboxylic acid;
wherein the composition is free of barium sulphate; and
wherein the composition is free of pigments, mineral
particles, and dispersed incompatible polymers, which act as
m1trntors for voiding.
(Claims App., Br. 12; emphasis added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 5
A. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 19, 22-27, and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Swallow. 6
Al. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 19, 22-27, and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 18 June 2014 ("Ans.").
6 John Cuthbert Swallow, Improvements in or relating to the Production of
Artificial Films, GB 609,797 (1948).
4
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
combined teachings of Swallow, Murschall, 7 and
Quintens. 8
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, we find that Sabic has presented substantive arguments for
patentability primarily on the basis of limitations in claims 1 and 22. The
remaining claims stand or fall with claims 1 and 22, although we also briefly
address Sabic's arguments regarding claims 23, 24, and 27,post.
Sabic does not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding recited
steps a) and c) of a process for preparing a polyester based film (Br. 5,
11. 10-19, emphasis added).
In particular, the Examiner finds, and Sabic does not contest, that
Swallow describes a process for preparing a film, involving the step of
extruding a polyester, such as a PET formed from terephthalic acid or ester
forming derivatives thereof and glycol, e.g., ethylene glycol, through a slot
die, followed by quenching the film to form an amorphous film (FR 3, 11. 1-
5; 5, 11. 8-11, citing Swallow, 2, 11. 100-107 and 1, 11. 43-70). The film
produced from Swallow's process is said to be useful for packaging
applications (id. at 2, 11. 4--10).
7 Ursula Murschall, et al., Opaque, White UV-Stabilized Low-Flammability
film with low transparency made from a crystallizable thermoplastic, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2003/0017317 Al (2003).
8 Dirk Quintens, et al., Non-Transparent Microvoided Axially Stretched
film, production process therefor and process for obtaining a transparent
pattern therein, WO 2008/040670 Al (2008).
5
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
We consider first the arguments focusing on drawing step b) ("heating
the amorphous film to a drawing temperature in the range from T g to
(Tg + 50) °C while applying a draw ratio in the range of 5.1 to 5.7 in
longitudinal direction, and a drawing rate of at least 1 m/min to form an
oriented film showing stress-whitening").
The Examiner finds that Swallow teaches heating an amorphous PET
film to a "temperature ranging from 60°C to within 30°C of the melt
temperature" (FR 3, 11. 6-7; 5, 11. 13-14, citing Swallow 1, 11. 70-71 and 79-
84). The Examiner finds that Swallow also exemplifies drawing the
amorphous PET film in a heating bath at 70°C (FR 3, 1. 11; 5, 1. 18, citing
Swallow, 3, 11. 75-76). The Examiner finds, and Sabic does not dispute, that
the temperature range taught by Swallow encompasses or overlaps the
recited drawing temperature range from T g to (T g + 50) °C. The Examiner
finds, and Sabic does not dispute, that Swallow teaches in its laboratory-
scale example (e.g.; an extrusion rate of 60 g/min) that the quenched
amorphous film is fed into a drawing machine in which the two pairs of
pinch rolls are operating at speeds of 120 and 600 revolutions per minute
(FR 3, 11. 22-24, 11. 1; 6, 11. 7-9, citing Swallow, 3, 11. 69-75). The
Examiner concludes, and Sabic does not contest, that these teachings would
have suggested the recited drawing rate limitation of at least 1 m/min. (Id. at
4, 11. 4---6; 6, 11. 10-14).
The Examiner finds Swallow teaches that "longitudinally drawing the
heated film such that the drawing tension causes the film to become opaque"
(FR 3, 11. 7-9, citing Swallow, 3, 11. 24--38). The Examiner concludes that
Swallow suggests "stretching the film to the extent required to achieve good
tensile strength and a desired opacity" (FR 3, 11. 11-15; 5, 11. 18-20, citing
6
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
Swallow 3, 11. 30-38and11. 29--38). In the words of the Examiner, Swallow
discloses that "the 'shearing forces' may cause opacity to form at 'a high
degree of draw, e.g. about 400% of the original length"' (FR 3, 11. 14, to 18;
5, 11. 24--26, 1. 1, citing Swallow, 3, 11. 29--38). The Examiner finds that
"about 400% of the original length" suggest[s] a draw ratio of 5.0: 1 (id.)
with evidentiary support from Hutson9 (FR 9, 11. 14--18, citing Hutson,
[0041] and [0044]) and Underwood10 (Adv. 11 2,11. 12-14, citing
Underwood, Example 1 ). Specifically, Hutson defines percent elongation of
a laminate film in relation to draw ratio, where "Percent
elongation = (Increase in sample length x 100)/0riginal length," or "Percent
elongation= (Draw ratio - 1) x 100" (Hutson [0040]-[0044]). This finding
is further supported by Underwood, which discloses that when a film is
stretched to 900% of its original length in a machine direction by drawing
the film vertically upward from a pair of counter rotating squeeze rolls, its
draw ratio is 10 (Adv. 2, 11. 12-14, citing Underwood, Example 1). Based
on these disclosures, the Examiner concludes that "about 400% of the
original length" exemplified in Swallow is said to be a draw ratio of 5.0: 1
(FR 3, 11. 14--18; 5, 11. 24--26).
The Examiner also finds that Swallow exemplifies a final opaque film
having a draw ratio of 4.9: 1 (FR 3, 11. 10-12; 5, 11. 17-19, citing Swallow 3,
9 Randell 0. Hutson et al., Absorbent Article with Double-Sided Soft and
Elastic Components, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0105446 Al
(2003).
10 William Underwood et al., Method for forming uniaxially oriented films
and the product formed thereby" U.S. Patent 3, 179,326 (1965).
11 Advisory Action mailed 7 January 2014 ("Adv.").
7
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
11. 78-79). The Examiner further finds that Swallow's drawing machine's
roll speeds of 120 and 600 revolutions/min would have suggested a draw
ratio of "about 5" (id. at 3, 11. 19-21; 6, 11. 3---6). 12 The Examiner finds that
Swallow's exemplified draw ratio of 4.9 and suggestion of "about 5.0" is
close enough to the recited lower limit draw ratio of 5.1 that "one skilled in
the art would have expected them to have the same properties" (FR, para.
bridging 9-10). The Examiner concludes that "[o ]ne having ordinary skill
would have readily determined the amount of stretching required to achieve
a film having required properties (e.g.[,] tensile strength, opacity and
thickness) in view of the teaching of Swallow." (FR 3, 11. 13-15; 5, 11. 20-
22.)
The Examiner also relies on Murschall and Quintens in combination
with Swallow to suggest the recited draw ratio, temperature and rate of the
claimed drawing step b ). The Examiner finds that Murschall teaches a
polyester film drawing process analogous to the drawing process described
by Swallow and by Sabic (FR 6, 11. 14--15, citing Murschall [0104]).
Murschall teaches longitudinally stretching a quenched amorphous film to a
heating temperature of T g + 10 K to T g + 60 K at a stretching ratio of 2 to 6
(Murschall [O 104]-[O105]) with an objective to obtain an opaque film
having desired mechanical properties suitable for various applications,
including laminated materials (id. at [0007]).
The Examiner finds that Quintens teaches that the drawing rate has an
impact on opacity of a stretched film, and exemplifies a rate of 4 m/min
12 The Examiner inserts the roller speeds of the drawing machine taught by
Swallow into the formula, draw ratio= (Draw roller speed)/( feed roller
speed) (Spec. 17, 11. 14--20), to determine the draw ratio of about 5.
8
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
(FR 6, 11. 18-20; citing Quintens 17, 11. 41--42, Table 2, Table 23). Similar
to Swallow and Murschall, Quintens teaches using a stretching ratio of 2 to 6
to obtain a film having higher opacity (id. at 17, 11. 46-40). Quintens further
teaches that such film is used for packaging applications (id. at 32, 11. 20-
31 ).
On this basis, the Examiner concludes that it would have been prima
facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the
teachings of Swallow with Murschall and Quintens to arrive at the recited
draw ratio, temperature, and rate for the purposes of achieving polyester
based films having desired opacity at an economically feasible production
speed. (FR, para. bridging 6 and 7).
Sabic urges that Swallow "do[ es] not disclose or suggest the feature of
using a draw ratio in the range of 5.1 to 5.7, much less using such a draw
ratio in combination with [the] claimed drawing temperature and drawing
rate to form an oriented film showing stress-whitening" (Br. 5, 11. 15-19).
More particularly, Sabic argues that: (1) Para. [0068] of the published
application does not state "a draw ratio of 4.9: 1 [is] to be considered to be a
draw ratio of 5.0: 1" (id. at 6, 11. 7-9); nor is (2) a high degree of draw, e.g.,
about 400% of the original length, equivalent to a draw ratio of 5: 113 (id. at
6, 11. 23-25; 7, 11. 1-3).
Moreover, Sabic argues that whether the draw ratio taught or
suggested by Swallow is 4.9 or 5.0, those draw ratios still fall outside of the
13 Sabic argues that Paragraphs [0041]-[0044] of U.S. Patent Application
2003/0105446 ("US '446") and U.S. Patent 3,179,326, as relied upon by
Examiner, do not show support for "when the degree of draw is 400% of the
original length, this is a draw ratio of 5: 1." (Br. 6, 7).
9
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
recited range of 5.1 to 5.7 (id.). Sabic further relies on Figs. 1 and 2 of
the '737 Specification to show that "when the draw ratio is lower than 5.1,
an opaque film is not obtained, when the draw ratio is greater than 6.0, the
film breaks, and when a draw ratio is 5 .1 to 5. 7, the process produces desired
opaque white film in stable and reproducible manner" (id. at 7, 11. 14--16).
These arguments are not persuasive of harmful error in the appealed
rejection in view of Swallow alone. Swallow teaches that, as drawing
tensions are applied to the surfaces of films and reach the interiors of films
by shearing forces, appreciable heating occurs during drawing which cause
opacity of the film if a high degree of draw, e.g., about 400% of the original
length, is attempted (Swallow 3, 11. 29--38). Swallow also demonstrates that
an opaque film is obtained using a draw ratio of 4.9: 1 with two pairs of
pinch rolls of drawing machine running at speeds of 120 and 600 revolutions
per minute (id. at 3, 11. 69--81 ). These films, like the claimed films, are said
to be particularly well suited as wrapping materials; e.g.; for moisture proof
packages (id. at 2, 11. 3-10). Hence, the drawing process taught by Swallow
also achieves an opaque film suitable for packaging purposes.
Sabic contends further that "there is no motivation for one skilled in
the art to modify the drawing temperature, drawing rate of the process
disclosed in [Swallow] in view of teachings of Quintens and Murschall."
Sabic urges that Swallow is not concerned with controlling transparency or
opacity of the film-rather, Swallow is concerned with low water
absorption, low moisture permeability, high electrical resistivity, resistan[ ce]
to abrasion, and resistan[ ce] to high temperature and frequency electrical
heating properties of the films" (Br. 10, 11. 16-19). Sabic further urges that
"[a]lthough a range of2 to 6 overlap[s] with the claimed range of 5.1 to 5.7,
10
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
Murschall et al. do not disclose any specific process having a draw ratio
falling within the claimed range." (Id. at 10, 11. 24--25). In particular, Sabic
argues, "[t]he draw ratio of the exemplified process disclosed in Murschall[]
was 3.1, 2.9, and 3.3 respectively," citing paras. [0135], [0136], and [0137]
ofMurschall. Moreover, in Sabic's view, "a preferred range of 2.5 to 4.5
taught by Murschall is directionally away from the claimed range of 5 .1 [to]
5. 7" (id. at 11, 11. 3--4 ). Sabic argues that Quin tens does not cure the
deficiencies of Swallow since Quintens do not disclose any specific drawing
ratio (id. at 11, 11. 10-12).
These contentions are not convincing of harmful error in the appealed
rejection over Swallow and the additional references. As mentioned above,
Swallow teaches as drawing tensions are applied to the surfaces of films and
reach the interiors of films by shearing forces, appreciable heating occurs
during drawing which cause opacity of the film if a high degree of draw is
attempted (Swallow 3; 11. 29--38; emphasis added). Swallow; like Murschall
and Quintens, is interested in obtaining a final opaque film. Thus, there is
motivation for one skilled in the art to modify the drawing temperature and
rate of the process disclosed in Swallow in view of teachings of Quintens
and Murschall.
Regarding Murschall's draw ratio, these arguments are not persuasive
of reversible error in the appealed rejection. The existence of other possible
"results" arising from the prior art does not make any particular result
unreasonable or otherwise non-obvious. Cf In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ('just because better alternatives exist in the prior art
does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness
purposes"); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
11
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("in a section 103 inquiry, the fact that a specific
[embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered." (internal quote and citation omitted)). Moreover, Quintens, like
Murschall, teaches that using a stretching (draw) ratio of 2 to 6 results in a
film having higher opacity (Quintens 17, 11. 46-40).
Additionally, in an attempt to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness, Sabic directs us to Figs. 1 and 2 ofthe'737 Specification, and
argues that draw ratio of 5.1 to 5.7 presented in Figs. 1 and 2 produces
surprising or "unexpected" results, i.e., a desired opaque white film, over
Swallow and Murschall. (Br. 7, para. bridging 10-11.) Sabic urges that,
"[a Jn Appellant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by presenting
comparative test data showing that the claimed invention possesses
unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not
have" (id. at 7; 11. 8-10).
However, Sabic has failed to direct us to any credible evidence
establishing that these results would have been unexpected. They have
failed to provide a side-by-side comparison between the claimed invention
and the closest prior art holding all variables constant except for the novel
features of the claimed invention. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("results must be shown to be unexpected
compared with the closest prior art").
Moreover, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims
on appeal. They have failed to direct us to credible evidence establishing
that the results presented in Figs. 1 and 2 are representative of the broad
12
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
range of film compositions and process conditions encompassed by the
claims on appeal.
Finally, Sabic submits that Swallow does not disclose or suggest films
having the recited densities of 500---1300 kg/m3 (claims 22, 23) and 800---
1200 kg/m3 (claim 24); tensile strengths of at least 250 MPa (claim 23) and
at least 300 (claim 24); surface gloss at 60° of at least 50 GU (claim 27); and
haze value of at least 80% (claim 27) (Br. 7, 11. 22-28). Specifically, Sabic
argues that, as discussed at page 13, lines 1---6, of the Specification as filed,
the film obtained with the claimed process is glossy, opaque, and has density
in the range of 500---1300 kg/m3 and such reduced density and opaque
appearance appear to have resulted from small voids that are formed during
the drawing process in the film (id. at 8, 11. 9-13). On the other hand,
according to Sabic, Swallow discloses obtaining opacity by crystallization
(id. at 8, 1. 14 ). Sabic urges that it is known to a person skilled in the art that
crystallization increases density of the films; and thus; the opaque film
disclosed in Swallow cannot attain a density lower than the density recited in
claims 22-24 and 27 (id. at 8, 11. 15-18, 9, 11. 23-29).
The Examiner finds that Swallow alone or in combination with
Quintens and Murschall "teaches and/or suggests the method steps of
claim 1 and employs the materials set forth in claim 1. As such, it follows
logically and from a technical basis that the same claimed physical
properties would be achieved/be present in the product produced by the
method of Swallow[]." (FR 8, 11. 3-9.) The Examiner also finds "no
persuasive evidence of record to suggest the practice of the method
suggested by the combination would have had a density outside of the
claimed range." (Id. at 8, 11. 16-18.) In other words, Sabic fails to direct us
13
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
to any evidence showing a detailed close comparison of the drawing process
between the prior art and claimed invention to show that the process taught
by Swallow alone or in combination with Quintens and Murschall will not
result in a film having the claimed properties. See In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir, 1997) (attorney argument is not the kind of factual
evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness); see also
In re de Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("Mere argument or
conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.").
The Examiner has shown that Swallow teaches a process similar to
the process claimed by Sabic, that results in opaque PET films useful for
packaging. The Examiner has also come forward with evidence from
Swallow, Quintens, and Murschall indicating that the differences in the draw
ratios used by Swallow and those used in the claimed process would have
been obvious. Although Sabic' s arguments regarding the density of the
opaque films are not unreasonable; they depend on Swallow's
characterizations of the mechanism leading to opacity. The difficulty with
Sabic' s arguments is the absence of experimental characterization of the
density or microstructure of the opaque films made by Swallow. In
particular, the films presented in Specification Fig. 1, characterized as
"initiation," 14 which Sabic appears to urge are like Swallow's films, have
not been shown to be reasonable comparisons to Swallow's opaque PET
films.
14 According to the Specification, initiation is observed when a transition
from a transparent into a glossy white film. (Spec. 18, 11. 8-9.)
14
Appeal2015-000012
Application 12/988,737
It is well-settled that "[w]here ... the claimed and prior art products
are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
( CCP A 1977) (citation omitted). The court in Best explained that the
fairness of this burden shift "is evidenced by the PTO's inability to
manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." Id.
(footnote omitted).
On the present record, we conclude that Sabic has not demonstrated
harmful error in the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 19, 22-27,
and 29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
15