Ex Parte Doufas et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

11796887 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

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.
11/796,887 04/30/2007 Antonios K. Doufas F5221-00069 5056
105118 7590 06/28/2012
Duane Morris LLP (Braskem)
IP DEPARTMENT
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
EXAMINER
HUDA, SAEED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2012 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 ANTONIOS K. DOUFAS, JEFFREY S. SALEK, RONALD A.
ANDREKANIC, WILLIAM C. THURSTON, and LEON M. RICE
____________

Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887

2
Antonios K. Doufas, et al., the Appellants,1 seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-18.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a process for improving the properties of
polypropylene impact copolymers by improving the dispersion of gels
within the copolymers. Specification (“Spec.”) ¶ [0001]. According to the
Appellants, “[g]els are of particular concern in the case of heterophasic
polymer blends, such as polyolefin impact copolymers, since the presence of
large numbers of large gels may compromise the aesthetic appearance of the
copolymers and may adversely affect the performance of the copolymers.”
Id. ¶ [0002]. The Appellants further explain, however, that “in the case of
polyolefin impact copolymers[,] complete removal of polymeric gels is
undesirable since these gels contribute to the impact resistant properties of
the impact copolymer.” Id. ¶ [0003]. Thus, the invention aims to eliminate
detrimental large gels while maintaining a dispersion of beneficial smaller
gels. Id. ¶ [0004].
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, is
reproduced below:
1. A process for improving gel size and distribution in a
polypropylene polymer comprising:

1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is Braskem PP Americas,
Inc.
2 Appeal Brief filed September 14, 2010 (“App. Br.”) at 1; Final Office
Action mailed March 12, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887

3
extruding a polymer melt comprising a heterophasic
blend of polypropylene homopolymer or random copolymer,
and a polypropylene copolymer rubber; and passing the
polymer melt through at least one layer of a filter media
comprising a non-woven fiber metal felt (FMF) layer.
App. Br. 8 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 15-18 as unpatentable over
Blakeslee3 in view of Verschaeve;4
II. Claim 4 as unpatentable over Blakeslee in view of
Verschaeve and Liu;5 and
III. Claim 12 as unpatentable over Blakeslee in view of
Verschaeve and Ushioda.6
Ans. 4-8.
ISSUES
With respect to Rejection I, the Appellants argue the claims together.
App. Br. 4-6. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative and confine
our discussion to this selected claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). With
respect to Rejections II and III, the Appellants rely on the same arguments
made against Rejection I. App. Br. 6-7. Therefore, our discussion as to
Rejection I applies equally to Rejections II and III.
The Examiner found that Blakeselee describes “a continuous
extrusion system for compounded polypropylene impact copolymers which

3 U.S. Patent 5,730,885 issued March 24, 1998.
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0012612 A1 published January
18, 2007.
5 U.S. Patent 5,217,485 issued June 8, 1993.
6 U.S. Patent 6,365,689 B1 issued April 2, 2002.
Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887

4
utilizes packs of screen filters of various meshes to reduce the number [and]
size of gels in the polypropylene copolymers.” Ans. 4; Blakeslee col. 1, l.
65 to col. 2, l. 5; col. 4, ll. 44-45. The Examiner acknowledged that
Blakeslee’s process differs from the subject matter of claim 1 in that it does
not use a non-woven FMF layer. Ans. 5. The Examiner found, however,
that Verschaeve teaches the use of a spinpack filter comprising a porous
structure of sintered short metal fibers to effectively shear gels as well as
remove impurities from polymer melt. Id.; Verschaeve ¶¶ [0013], [0029],
[0031]. The Examiner concluded from these findings that the subject matter
of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans.
5.
The Appellants contend that Verschaeve teaches away from the
claimed invention because the reference teaches short metal fibers with
sharp edges to effect shearing, while the invention is based on FMF media
comprised of fibers with round cross-sectional area. App. Br. 5. According
to the Appellants, the “invention surprisingly demonstrated a significant
reduction of large gels (by a factor of at least about 60-90%) relative to
conventional metal plain weave and dutch twill screens having well
structured woven patterns and disclosed in the invention of Blakeslee.” Id.
In support, the Appellants rely on Mr. Doufas’s Declaration executed
January 11, 2010 (and filed January 12, 2010). Id. 5-6.
Thus, the dispositive issues are:
Did the Examiner articulate sufficient reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been prompted to replace Blakeslee’s mesh filters with
Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887

5
Verschaeve’s spinpack filter comprising a porous structure of sintered short
metal fibers?
Does the evidence offered in support of nonobviousness successfully
overcome the Examiner’s rejection?

DISCUSSION
We find no error in the Examiner’s rejection. Because we are in
complete agreement with the Examiner’s factual findings, analysis, and legal
conclusion as set forth in the Answer, we adopt them as our own and add the
following comments for emphasis.
It is undisputed that Blakeslee describes every limitation of claim 1
except for the use of “a non-woven fiber metal felt (FMF) layer” as a filter.
App. Br. 5. It is also undisputed that Verschaeve teaches an FMF filter with
fibers having sharp edges to effectively shear polymer gels as well as
remove impurities from polymer melt. Id. The Appellants’ principal
argument is that Verschaeve teaches away from the invention recited in
claim 1 because the reference teaches fibers having sharp edges rather than
fibers with rounded cross-sections.
We find no persuasive merit in the Appellants’ argument. As pointed
out by the Examiner, Answer 9, “[c]laim 1 does not require any particular
configuration or dimension of the fibers.” Contrary to the Appellants’
belief, claim 1 reads on fibers having sharp edges.
Also unpersuasive is the Appellants’ argument that Verschaeve
“do[es] not provide any data to quantitatively illustrate the reduction in large
gels and improvement in gel size as well as distribution, nor is the type of
polymer specified that would benefit.” App. Br. 5. Verschaeve’s teaching
Appeal 2011-006508
Application 11/796,887

6
that the filter will effectively shear polymer gels provides a sufficient
motivation or reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute
Blakeslee’s mesh filter with Verschaeve’s filter. Regarding the identity of
Verschaeve’s polymer, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that any polymer melt with large gels, such as that
disclosed in Blakeslee, would benefit from the use of Verschaeve’s filter.
Finally, we find the Appellants’ reliance on Mr. Doufas’s Declaration
to be misplaced for the reasons given by the Examiner. Ans. 9-10. The data
presented in Table 1 appear to be based on a comparison of FMF fiber filters
with specific configurations, shapes, and sizes. The claims are not
reasonably commensurate with the offered showing. Moreover, as pointed
out by the Examiner, Answer 10, the Appellants have failed to meet their
burden of providing a detailed explanation as to how and why the results
would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be truly
unexpected and statistically significant.
We have considered the arguments made in the Reply Brief filed
January 24, 2011 only to the extent that they were timely raised in the
Appeal Brief. For reasons stated above, we find them unpersuasive.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 and 15-18 are 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl