Ex parte CORBIN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 1998

07943795 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 11, 1992. 1
According to the appellants, the application is a
continuation-in-part of Application No. 07/718,720, filed June
21, 1991, now U.S. Patent No. 5,169,870.
1THIS 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS F. CORBIN, ALAN C. HANDERMANN, RICHARD KOTEK,
WILLIAM D. PORTER, JACK A. DELLINGER and EDWARD A. DAVIS
____________
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,7951
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, PAK and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
refusal to allow claims 1 through 14, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. Claim 14 has been amended
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
2
subsequent to the final rejection. See Supplemental Reply
Brief, Paper No. 15.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
1. A process for recovering ,-caprolactam from nylon
6 carpet, comprising:
a) providing a carpet made from nylon 6 fibers and
having a backing containing one or more non-nylon 6 materials
of polypropylene, jute, latex and fillers to a mechanical
separator to prepare scrap containing both nylon 6 and non-
nylon 6 backing materials, and a first auxiliary stream;
b) feeding the scrap from the separator to a
deploymerizing reactor to produce an ,-caprolactam containing
distillate and a second auxiliary stream;
c) separating ,-caprolactam in the distillate from
other volatiles therein; and
d) purifying the ,-caprolactam obtained after
separating so that the ,-caprolactam is of sufficient purity
for reuse as a starting material for nylon 6 intended for use
in carpet fiber.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Norris 4,028,159 Jun. 07,
1977
Dmitrieva et al. (Dmitrieva), “Regeneration of ,-Caprolactam
from Wastes in the Manufacture of Polycaproamide Fibres and
Yarns,” Khimicheskie Volokna, Vol. 17, No. 4, (July-August,
1985),
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
The examiner’s reference to this reference is to the2
corresponding translation.
3
pp. 5-12 (hereinafter referred to as “Dmitrieva”) .2
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
In the final Office action, the examiner rejected claims3
1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris. The examiner,
however, did not repeat the § 103 rejection based on the
combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris in the Answer.
The Answer contained only a new ground of rejection, i.e., an
obviousness-type double patenting rejection based on Corbin
(parent Application 07/718,720, now U.S. Patent No.
5,169,870), Dmitrieva and Norris. In response to the Reply
Brief, the examiner withdrew the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, but reinstated the § 103 rejection based
on the combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris in the
first Supplemental Answer, Paper No. 14.
4
The only issue presented for review is whether the
examiner correctly rejected claims 1 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Dmitrieva and Norris.3
OPINION
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification, including Figures 1 through 3, and all of the
claims on appeal; (2) appellants’ Brief, Reply Brief and
Supplemental Reply Brief before the Board; (3) the examiner’s
Answer and Supplemental Answers; and (4) the prior art
references cited and relied on by the examiner.
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
5
Having carefully considered those materials, we find
ourselves in agreement with the position succinctly set forth
by appellants in the “argument” section of their Brief,
particularly pages 15 and 16 of their Brief. Accordingly, we
shall adopt that position as our own. For the reasons stated
by appellants in their Brief, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
6
Karen M. Dellerman
BASF Corporation
Patent Department
Sand Hill Road
Enka, NC 28728
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
7
CKP/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 94-0792
Serial No. 07/943,795
Judge PAK
Judge GARRIS

Judge WARREN
Received: 03 Sep 98
Typed: 04 Sep 98
DECISION: REVERSED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 1511
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___
Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
9