Ex Parte Chen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2012

11859428 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/859,428 09/21/2007 Ming-Ming Chen SY-40802/710240-3722 4659
7590 03/14/2012
ROBERT L. STEARNS
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Ste. 2000
38525 Woodward Avenue
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2970
EXAMINER
SZEKELY, PETER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MING-MING CHEN
____________

Appeal 2011-001417
Application 11/859,428
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 13, 14, 17-22, and 26-28. In the Answer, the
Examiner withdraws the rejection of independent claim 28 and states that the
claim is allowable (Ans. 3). As a consequence, this appeal involves only
claims 1, 4-7, 9, 13, 14, 17-22, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2011-001417
Application 11/859,428

2
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a halogen-free flame-retardant composition
comprising melamine cyanurate, melamine polyphosphate, and poly
(ethylene terephthalate) having certain particle sizes and a limited moisture
content (claim 1) and a method of forming a halogen-free flame-retardant
material made from such a composition (claim 14).
Representative claims 1 and 14, the only independent claims on
appeal, read as follows:
1. A halogen-free flame-retardant compound,
comprising:
melamine cyanurate having a particle size of about 2µm
and comprising from about 5 to 12 weight percent of said
compound;
melamine polyphosphate having a particle size of about
5µm and comprising from about 5 to 12 weight percent of said
compound;
poly(ethylene terephthalate) having a particle size less
than about 100µm; and
wherein said melamine cyanurate, said melamine
polyphosphate, and said poly(ethylene terephthalate) comprise
below a 100ppm combined moisture content.

14. A method of forming a halogen-free flame-retardant
continuous material, comprising the steps of:
providing melamine cyanurate having a particle size of
about 2µm;
providing melamine polyphosphate having a particle size
of about 5µm;
providing poly(ethylene terephthalate) having a particle
size less than about 100µm;
maintaining the moisture content of said melamine
cyanurate, said melamine polyphosphate, and said
poly(ethylene terephthalate) below 100ppm while introducing
Appeal 2011-001417
Application 11/859,428

3
said melamine cyanurate, said melamine polyphosphate and
said poly(ethylene terephthalate) in a twin screw extruder; and
extruding said compound.

The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner's statement of rejection is reproduced below:

Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17-22 and 26 -27 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kuma et al. 6,207,735, Matsuda et al. 2002/0013392, Steib et
al. 20005/0234161 or Couillens et al. 2007/0299171, in view of
Wiejak 3,607, 375, Boylan 3,705,859, Asher et al. 3,981,839,
[or] Ballard et al. 4,007,247, further in view of Mogami et al.
5,684,071 or Kaprinidis 2007/0111010, and even further
in view of Weissermel et al. 3,632,402 or Kersjes et al.
6,369,137.

(Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds that "[t]he four primary references disclose the
claimed ingredients and their concentrations . . . [albeit] [t]hey are silent
about the particle sizes and moisture contents of said ingredients" (id. at
para. bridging 5-6 (see also id. at para. bridging 4-5)). The Examiner
additionally finds that "[i]t is shown by the [other] applied . . . references
that the claimed ingredients having the claimed particle size[s] and moisture
content were known and available at the time the invention was made" (id.).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that "it is well known in the mixing art that
small particles disperse more uniformly than larger particles and that excess
Appeal 2011-001417
Application 11/859,428

4
moisture leads to agglomeration of particles and to surface imperfections"
(id.).
In light of these findings, the Examiner concludes that "[i]t would
have been . . . obvious to use small particle sizes, in order [to] ensure
optimum dispersion and to keep the moisture content to a minimum in order
to avoid agglomeration" (id. at para. bridging 4-5) as required by the rejected
claims.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner's findings with any
reasonable specificity. Rather, Appellant's argument against the rejections is
that the Examiner has failed to carry the burden of showing why an artisan
would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner
required by the claims (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2).
This argument is unpersuasive. As indicated above and in the
Answer, an artisan would have been motivated to provide the claimed
ingredients disclosed in each of the four primary references with the claimed
particle sizes and moisture content in order to optimize dispersion and to
avoid agglomeration. Further, such motivation is supported by the
uncontested findings discussed previously.
We sustain, therefore, each of the Examiner's above § 103 rejections
of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 13, 14, 17-22, 26, and 27.
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 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).
AFFIRMED

kmm