Ex Parte Ding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

15022946 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/022,946 03/18/2016
43252 7590 09/04/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP)
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tianhua Ding
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.
12PLAS0337-US-PCT 8774
EXAMINER
RIETH, STEPHEN EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
colleen l .brennan@sabic-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIANHUA DING, DAKE SHEN,
HONGTAO SHI, and LIN CHEN
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAND. RANGE,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' invention relates generally to an ecologically friendly
halogen free fire retardant polycarbonate/thermoplastic polyester
composition. (Spec. ,r 4). Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the principal Brief.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is SABIC
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES B.V. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
1. A thermoplastic composition comprising, based on total
weight of the composition:
from 10 to 50 weight percent of a terephthalate-based polyester;
from 15 to 65 weight percent of a polycarbonate;
a silicone material selected from the group consisting of: (i)
from 20 to 40 weight percent of a polyorganosiloxane-
polycarbonate copolymer; (ii) from 1 to 5 weight percent
of a silicone rubber; or a mixture thereof; wherein the
siloxane content of the silicone material is greater than 15
weight percent;
from 3 to 12 weight percent of a bisphenol A-based
polyphosphonate homopolymer flame retardant having a
phosphorus content of at least 2 percent by weight and a
weight average molecular weight of more than 20000; and
from 0.01 to 5 weight percent of an antidripping agent;
and wherein the composition has:
a notched Izod impact strength of greater than 500 J/m
measured at room temperature,
according to ASTM D256 on a sample bar molded from the
composition and having a thickness of 3 .2 mm;
a Vicat softening temperature higher than 120 °C in
accordance with ASTM Dl525 on a sample bar molded
from the composition and having a thickness of 3 .2 mm;
and
a UL-94 flammability rating of VO measured on a molded
sample with a thickness of 1.5 mm.
Claims Appendix, App. Br. 13.
Appellants (see generally App. Br.) request review of the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wan (WO
2
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
2012/058821 Al, May 10, 2012, Freitag (US 2012/0264844
Al, Oct. 18, 2012), and Vinciguerra (US 6,861,499 B2, Mar.
1, 2005).
II. Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Wan, Freitag, Hongo (US 4,888,388,
Dec. 19, 1989), and Vinciguerra.
III. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of over Wan in view of Stahl (US 2009/0043013
Al, Feb. 12, 2009).
IV. Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Wan, Stahl, and Hongo.
OPINION
Rejection I2
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. We affirm the appealed rejections for the reasons
provided by the Examiner. We add the following:
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the
Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 8-12).
2 Appellants' arguments are directed to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 9-
12). We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 which we select as
representative of the rejected claims.
3
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
The Examiner found Wan teaches thermoplastic polycarbonate
compositions comprising all of the components and properties of the
claimed invention differing in the flame retardant is not bisphenol A based
polyphosphonate. (Ans. 8-10). The Examiner cited Freitag for teaching
polyphosphonate flame retardant mixtures suitable for incorporation into
thermoplastic polycarbonate compositions. (Ans. 9: Freitag Abstract;
,r,r 28-30, 49). The Examiner found Freitag teaches bisphenol A based
polyphosphonates that exhibit the characteristics required by the claimed
invention. (Ans. 10). The Examiner cited Vinciguerra (a reference cited in
Freitag) as evidence that Freitag's disclosure encompasses homopolymers.
(Ans. 10). The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate polyphosphonate flame retardant
mixtures in polycarbonate thermoplastic composition such as described by
Wan. (Ans. 9-10).
Appellants argue there is no reason to include the flame retardant
system of Freitag in the compositions of Wan because these features are
already present in the compositions of Wan. Appellants argue Wan teaches
a polycarbonate-polyester composition that includes a flame retardant
system that provides an advantageous balance of properties that include high
flame resistance, good impact resistance, and high heat resistance. (App. Br.
10). Appellants argue because Freitag fails to describe the influence of a
polyphosphonate and/or the organic salt on the impact resistance or heat
resistance the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient motivation why a
skilled person would have modified Wan based on Freitag. (App. Br. 10).
4
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The prior art cited
by the Examiner establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the suitability of incorporating polyphosphonate
compositions that provide flame retardance in polycarbonate thermoplastic
compositions. Freitag specifically states "random copolyphosphonates of
embodiments are generally tough, extremely flame retardant, and exhibit
superior hydrolytic stability." (Freitag ,r 38). On the present record, the
Examiner has established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that polyphosphonate compositions would have provided
flame retardance and stable ability characteristics to thermoplastic
compositions as described by Freitag. In other words, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized the suitability of incorporating
melamine compounds and polyphosphonate into thermoplastic
compositions. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that bisphenol A based polyphosphonate flame
retardants would have been suitable for incorporation into thermoplastic
compositions such as described by Wan. "Obviousness does not require
absolute predictability of success ... all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359---60 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (citing In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903---04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Furthermore, Wan expressly discloses the composition can include other
additives including flame resistive additives. (Wan ,r 74). Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellants' contention that there is no reason to include
the flame retardant system of Freitag in the compositions Wan has suggested
by the Examiner.
5
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
Appellants do not separately argues claims 15 and 17-19. (App. Br.
11 ). Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced in connection with
independent claim 1 discussed supra.
Accordingly, based on the findings and reasoning set forth above,
Appellants have not established reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in favor of
the obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, and
17-19 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Re} ection II
Appellants do not present substantive arguments addressing the
rejection of claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Wan, Freitag, Vinciguerra,
and Hongo. (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants argue claims 8, 12, 16, and 20
are patentable for the reasons presented when addressing independent
claim 1 because Hongo does not provide motivation for a skilled person to
have modified the composition of Wan according to the composition of
Freitag. (App. Br. 11).
Appellants' argument is without persuasive merit because it does not
address the reasoning provided by the Examiner for the rejection.
Accordingly, based on the findings and reasoning set forth above and those
presented by the Examiner, Appellants have not established reversible error
in the Examiner's determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans
heavily in favor of the obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 8,
12, 16, and 20 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2018-007245
Application 15/022,946
Rejections III and IV
Rejections III and IV rely on the combination of Wan and Stahl. The
Examiner cited the Stahl reference for the same reasons the Freitag reference
was cited in rejections I and II. These rejections are cumulative to the
rejections discussed above. Consequently, since the issue of incorporating a
polyphosphonate flame retardant mixtures in polycarbonate thermoplastic
composition has been addressed above we decline to address these
cumulative rejections.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, and the reasons presented by the
Examiner, we sustain appealed rejections I and II of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7