Ex Parte Cho et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201814020343 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/020,343 09/06/2013 Sangho Cho 75148-US-NP (DOW0017US) 3578 14268 7590 02/12/2018 The Dow Chemical Company/Cantor Colburn LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3207 EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/12/2018 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 u sptopatentmail @ C antorColburn .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANGHO CHO, GUORONG SUN, KAREN L. WOOLEY, JAMES W. THACKERAY, and PETER TREFONAS III Appeal 2017-005339 Application 14/020,343 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a graft copolymer. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A graft block copolymer comprising: a first block polymer; the first block polymer comprising a backbone polymer and a first graft polymer; where the first graft polymer comprises a repeat unit comprising a surface energy reducing moiety chosen from a halocarbon containing moiety, a silicon containing moiety, or a combination of a halocarbon moiety and a silicon containing moiety; and Appeal 2017-005339 Application 14/020,343 a second block polymer; the second block polymer being covalently bonded to the first block; wherein the second block comprises the backbone polymer and a second graft polymer; where the second graft polymer comprises a functional group that is operative to undergo acid-catalyzed deprotection causing a change of solubility of the graft block copolymer in a developer solvent. The Reference Xia US 2013/0324666 A1 Dec. 5,2013 The Rejection Claims 1—5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xia. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 5—12). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. Claims 2—5 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Xia’s formulas FX4 and FX5 show a graft copolymer comprising a first block polymer having a backbone polymer (portion within ( )m) and a first graft copolymer with an aryl repeat unit (portion within ( )p) which, Xia indicates, can be fluorinated flflf 141, 142, 154), and a second block polymer which is covalently bonded to the first block polymer and has a backbone polymer (portion within ( )n) and a second graft polymer with an ester group repeat unit (portion within ( )q) which is a functional group operative to undergo acid-catalyzed deprotection causing a change of solubility of the graft block copolymer in a developer solvent (Appellants’ Spec. 137). 2 Appeal 2017-005339 Application 14/020,343 The Appellants assert that “the structure of Xia could contain a variety of different molecules that contain heteroatoms and none of these heteroatoms could be repeat units of a graft copolymer (that contain a surface energy reducing moiety) that is bonded to each repeat unit of a block polymer” (Reply Br. 4), and Xia is “so overly broad and vague that a skilled portion [sic, person] in the art could not arrive at the claimed invention” (id.). Xia’s disclosure that fluorine is an optional substituent in any aryl group (11141, 142) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to use fluorine as an aryl group substituent in formulas FX4 and FX5. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xia is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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). AFFIRMED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation