Ex Parte Holicza

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

12950110 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

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.
12/950,110 11/19/2010 Peter J. Holicza 14223.35 7091
64167 7590
Evan R. Witt
Kirton & McConkie
36 South State Street, Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
KAUCHER, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
ipdocket@kmclaw.com
ewitt@kmclaw.com
abirch@kmclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER J. HOLICZA
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned,
non-salt cured hide. Corrected Appeal Brief filed September 1, 2016
(“Corrected App. Br.”), 2—3. Claims 1 and 24 illustrate the subject matter on
appeal and are reproduced below:
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Leatherteq Limited.
Appeal Brief filed March 7, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
1. A preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non­
salt cured hide made according to a method comprising the
steps of fatliquoring, bating, pickling and lastly drying the hide,
wherein the step of fatliquoring is carried out prior to the step
of bating.
24. A preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non­
salt cured hide.
Corrected App. Br. 4, 7 (Claims Appendix).
The References
Ayles US 1,734,106 December 7, 1929
Ushakoff US 2,868,614 January 13, 1959
Kremen et al. US 2,917,833 December 22, 1959
Karaghiosoff US 3,638,562 February 1, 1972
Robinson et al. US 4,434,196 February 28, 1984
Christner et al. US 4,889,811 December 26, 1989
Munch et al. US 4,935,031 June 19, 1990
Taeger et al. US 2007/0022541 Al February, 1, 2007
Bowker US 7,578,970 b2 August 25, 2009
Moenus GB 1,138,099 December 12, 1968
Famham, Home Tanning and Leather Making Guide, (A.R. Harding
1922).
Derwent Abstract 1996-115110 (Karlsson, SE 9401735 A, November
20, 1995).
2
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
The Rejections
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered August 7, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the rejections in
the Examiner’s Answer entered December 23, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch;
II. Claims 3—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham;
III. Claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Karaghiosoff;
IV. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Christner;
V. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Moenus;
VI. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Ayles;
VII. Claims 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Taeger;
VIII. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of Robinson, Bowker, and the
Derwent abstract.
3
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
IX. Claims 1—6, 102, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham;
X. Claims 1,9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham and
Christner;
XI. Claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham and Karaghiosoff;
XII. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham and Moenus;
XIII. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham and Ayles;
XIV. Claims 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham and Taeger; and
XV. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kremen as evidenced by Munch in view of Famham, Robinson, Bowker,
and the Derwent abstract.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ushakoff in view
of the additional applied prior art references, for the reasons set forth in the
Final Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer, and below. We reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2 Although the Examiner does not include claim 10 in the listing of claims
included in this ground of rejection on page 11 of the Final Action, the
Examiner addresses claim 10 on page 13 of the Final Action.
4
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
unpatentable over Kremen in view of the additional applied prior art
references, for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Rejections I—VIII
Appellant addresses Rejections I—VIII together on the basis of
independent claims 1, 2, and 24, which Appellant argues as a group. App.
Br. 4—16. Therefore, although Appellant does not provide separate
arguments for independent claims 1,2, and 24, we decide the appeal as to
claims 1—24 based on representative claims 1 and 24. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 24
Ushakoff discloses a process of applying a fatting agent to a skin or
hide that involves substantially dehydrating the skin by contacting it with an
organic solvent to extract water present in the skin, applying a surface
coating of a fatting agent to the solvated skin, and applying external heat to
the skin to dry the skin of the organic solvent and distribute the fatting agent
throughout the skin. Col. 1,11. 15—20, 60—61; col. 2,11. 22—34; col. 3,11. 52—
58. Ushakoff discloses that this process “results in the skin having a far
greater tear resistance and tensile strength than is imparted by other fat
5
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
liquoring processes.” Col. 1,11.60—64. Ushakoff discloses that preferred
fatting agents include fatty acids, such as oleic acid. Col. 3,11. 26—30.
Ushakoff discloses that “although ordinarily a fatty acid will be applied to a
skin after it has been treated with a tanning agent, the presence of the
tanning agent is not essential to the strengthening effect of the fatty acid.”
Col. 6,11. 1—5. Ushkoff further discloses that “[a] solvated skin, free of any
tanning agent, if similarly treated with a fatty acid, will have the enhanced
tear resistance and tensile strength imparted by the fatty acid.” Col. 6,11. 5—
8.
Ushakoff describes an embodiment of Ushakoff s invention that
involves pickling a bated cowhide, tanning the pickled cowhide, solvent
dehydrating the hide with acetone, applying a surface coating of oleic acid
(fatliquoring or fatting agent) to the solvated hide, and removing the solvent
from the pickled, fatliquored, solvent dehydrated, non-salt-cured hide by
applying external heat to the hide. Col. 3,1. 61—col. 5,1. 43. The Examiner
finds that Munch discloses that techniques such as solvent dehydrating serve
to preserve a skin. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Munch col. 2).
Appellant argues that Ushakoff is directed to a process for tanning
skins, and Ushakoff discloses that a tanning agent will always be present
when a fatting agent is applied to a solvated skin. App. Br. 5—7. Appellant
contends that Ushakoff therefore does not disclose application of a fatting
agent to an untanned skin. App. Br. 10—11. Appellant asserts that
Ushakoff s disclosure that “[a] solvated skin, free of any tanning agent, if
similarly treated with a fatty acid, will have the enhanced tear resistance and
tensile strength imparted by the fatty acid,” indicates that “a tanning agent
could be applied to a skin and then thoroughly rinsed/removed from the skin
6
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
prior to applying the fatting agent, and the fatting agent may still provide the
same benefits to the tanned skin.” App. Br. 7 (quoting Ushakoff col. 6,11. 5—
8). Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood this disclosure in column 6 of Ushakoff “as stating only that the
skin does not need to be subjected to the tanning agent and the fatty acid at
the same time during the solvent tannage process.” Reply Br. 7. Appellant
also asserts that the Examiner’s “piecemeal analysis” in which various
features of a hide are treated in isolation ignores the fact that Ushakoff
“provides no indication whatsoever that it was even contemplated to perform
fatliquoring on an untanned and non-salt-cured hide” to preserve a hide for
subsequent tanning, and Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is
therefore based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 7, 13—14.
However, Ushakoff s disclosure that the presence of a tanning agent is
not essential to the strengthening effect of a fatty acid, and disclosure of
treating a solvated skin, free of any tanning agent, with a fatty acid,
reasonably would have suggested treating an untanned, solvated skin with a
fatty acid before application of a tanning agent. In other words, given the
limited possible alternatives for treating a solvated skin, free of any tanning
agent, with a fatty acid—such as treating the skin with the fatty acid before
application of a tanning agent, or treating with the fatty acid after complete
removal of a previously applied tanning agent—one of ordinary skill in the
art would have readily envisaged all such alternatives. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
disclosure of a small genus may anticipate the species of that genus even if
the species are not themselves recited.”); see also In re Cleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1337—38 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432
7
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315
(CCPA 1978); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to impart
enhanced tear resistance and tensile strength to a skin or hide with a fatting
agent as disclosed in Ushakoff reasonably would have been led, through no
more than ordinary skill and creativity, to apply the fatting agent to the hide
before application of a tanning agent. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968) (it is well established that in evaluating references it is proper
to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also
the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to
draw therefrom). Ushakoff s disclosure of pickling, tanning, solvent
dehydrating, and fatliquoring a hide, and failure to mention salt-curing, in
view of Ushakoff s suggestion of applying a fatting agent to a hide before
application of a tanning agent, reasonably would have suggested applying a
fatting agent to a non-salt-cured, pickled, solvent dehydrated hide before
application of a tanning agent to the hide, so as to produce a preserved,
untanned, fatliquored, pickled, dried, non-salt-cured hide as recited in claim
24, as evidenced by Munch’s disclosure that solvent dehydration serves to
preserve a hide. It follows that Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
Appellant further argues that Munch’s failure to include fatliquoring
in its discussion of techniques for preserving hides provides “strong
evidence that it would not have been obvious to use fatliquoring in a process
to preserve a hide for later tanning.” App. Br. 12.
However, as set forth above, claim 24 recites a preserved, fatliquored,
pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt cured hide. Claim 24 does not recite
8
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
process limitations that use fatliquoring to preserve a hide for later tanning,
as Appellant’s arguments imply. In addition, Appellant’s arguments do not
address the Examiner’s reliance on Munch to provide evidence that
techniques such as solvent dehydration as disclosed in Ushakoff serve to
preserve a skin. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Munch col. 2). Moreover,
Appellant’s arguments ignore Ushakoff s suggestion, as discussed above, of
applying a fatting agent to a non-salt-cured, pickled, solvent dehydrated hide
before applying a tanning agent to the hide, to produce a preserved,
untanned, fatliquored, pickled, dried, non-salt-cured hide as recited in claim
24. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
Although Appellant also argues that the combined disclosures of
Famham and Ushakoff would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to cure
skins with salt, and then use the tanning techniques disclosed in Ushakoff on
the salt-cured skins, the Examiner does not apply Famham as a prior art
reference in the rejection of claim 24 (and claims 1 and 2).3 App. Br. 11—12.
Accordingly, because Appellant’s arguments directed to Famham do not
address the actual rejection of claim 24 (and claims 1 and 2) presented by
the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error in
the rejection.
Appellant further argues that his invention addresses a long-felt need
because it allows an untanned hide to be preserved without salt curing. App.
Br. 15. Appellant contends that employing fatliquoring to preserve untanned
hides in accordance with his invention preserves the untanned hides for at
3 In rejecting claims 3—6, the Examiner relies on Famham’s disclosure that
soaking, fleshing, liming, unhairing, deliming, washing, and rinsing are
conventional preliminary steps in hide treatment. Final Act. 5 (citing
Farhnampg. 77).
9
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
least six months, whereas Miinch addresses the disadvantages of salt curing
by applying sodium chlorite with an additional hydrotropic compound,
which only preserves hides for 2—3 weeks. App. Br. 15—16 (citing Spec.
1374, Miinch col. 3,11. 35^10).
However, Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that there was a long-felt need that was solved by his invention.
App. Br. 4—16; In re Mixon, 470 F.2d 1374, 1377 (CCPA 1973). Appellant
does not show that the solution to the problem of developing a method for
preserving an untanned hide without salt curing would not have been
apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of the applied
prior art, particularly Ushakoff in view of Miinch. App. Br. 4—16; In re
Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538—39 (CCPA 1967) (Establishing long-felt need
requires objective evidence showing existence of a persistent problem
recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art for which a solution was not
known.). In fact, as Appellant points out, Miinch discloses preserving hides
without salt curing for 2—3 weeks. App. Br. 15. In addition, as discussed
above, Ushakoff would have suggested fatliquoring a non-salt cured,
untanned, pickled, solvent dehydrated hide, which would have preserved the
hide, as evidenced by Miinch’s disclosure that solvent dehydrating preserves
hides. Miinch col. 2,11. 7—14; Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864
F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (The long-felt need must not have been
satisfied by another before the invention by applicant.).
Therefore, considering the totality of the evidence relied upon in this
appeal, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
4 Paragraph 37 of Appellant’s Specification as published corresponds to
page 12, lines 8—14 of the Specification as originally filed.
10
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We accordingly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch.
Claims 1—23
As set forth above, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim that recites a
preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt cured hide made
according to a method comprising the steps of fatliquoring, bating, pickling
and lastly drying the hide, wherein the step of fatliquoring is carried out
prior to the step of bating.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined
by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.”
In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Where a product-by­
process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical,
although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants
to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference
between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710
F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As discussed above, Appellant does not provide arguments for the
separate patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 4—16. Nonetheless, we point out
that Appellant’s arguments discussed above in connection with claim 24 do
not identify any structural distinction, or unobvious difference, between the
preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt cured hide recited
in claim 1, and the non-salt cured, untanned, preserved, pickled, fatliquored,
solvent dehydrated hide suggested by Ushakoff, as evidenced by Munch.
App. Br. 4—16.
11
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
In addition to the arguments discussed above in connection with claim
24, Appellant further argues that Ushakoff discloses applying a fatting agent
to a solvated skin as part of a solvent tannage process to produce a tanned
skin with greater tensile strength. App. Br. 15. Appellant contends that
“[performing fatliquoring on an untanned and non-salt-cured hide will
produce the claimed preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non­
salt cured hide whereas applying fatting agent to a solvated skin as part of
the tanning process [as disclosed in Ushakoff] produces a fatliquored and
tanned hide that may or may not have been preserved, pickled, or salt
cured.” Id.
However, as discussed above, Ushakoff s disclosures as a whole
would have suggested applying a fatting agent to a non-salt-cured, pickled,
solvent dehydrated hide before applying a tanning agent to the hide, so as to
produce a non-salt-cured, untanned, preserved, pickled, fatliquored, dried
hide as recited in claim 24, as evidenced by Munch’s disclosure that solvent
dehydration serves to preserve a hide. Appellant’s arguments again do not
identify any structural distinction, or unobvious difference, between the non­
salt cured, untanned, preserved, pickled, fatliquored, solvent dehydrated hide
suggested by Ushakoff, as evidenced by Munch, and the preserved,
fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt cured hide recited in claim 1.
Appellant further argues that Ushakoff consistently teaches applying a
fatting agent to a solvent dehydrated skin, and therefore discloses drying
before fatliquoring, which is “contrary to the presently claimed invention.”
Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant argues that the Examiner confuses removing
organic solvent from Ushakoff s hide with removing moisture or water from
the hide. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that his Specification defines
12
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
“drying” as reducing the moisture (or water) content of a hide. Reply Br. 3
(citing Spec. 7,11. 24—25). Appellant asserts that the Examiner, therefore,
erroneously states that Ushakoff discloses drying last by disclosing lastly
removing solvent from a hide, because removing organic solvent is not
“drying” as defined in his Specification. Reply Br. 3.
However, regardless of whether Ushakoff s disclosure of solvent
removal constitutes “drying” as defined in Appellant’s Specification,
Appellant’s arguments do not identify any structural distinction, or
unobvious difference, between the non-salt cured, untanned, preserved,
pickled, fatliquored, solvent dehydrated hide—to which external heat is
applied to dry the hide of solvent—suggested by Ushakoff, as evidenced by
Munch, and the preserved, fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt
cured hide recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellant does not meet his burden of production by
coming forward with evidence establishing a material difference between the
hide recited in claim 1, and the hide suggested by Ushakoff, as evidenced by
Munch. Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803. We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in view of the additional applied prior art
references.
Having affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ushakoff as evidenced by Munch in
view of the additional applied prior art references, we need not reach the
merits of the Examiner’s alternative rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ushakoff. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to address alternative grounds of
13
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
unpatentability when the court upholds one such ground); In re Basell
Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Having concluded that
the Board properly affirmed the rejection of claims 1—52 of the ‘687 patent
based on obviousness-type double patenting in view of the ‘987 patent, we
need not address the remaining issues raised by Basell regarding the
§§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections, as well as the additional double patenting
rejections. Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed.”); Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a single
dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters decided
by the presiding officer).
Rejections IX—XV
Independent claims 1, 2, and 24 each recite, inter alia, a preserved,
fatliquored, pickled, dried, untanned, non-salt cured hide.
The Examiner finds that Kremen discloses treating a hide with hexyl
cellosolve, hexyl carbitol, or a fatty alcohol, such as dodecanol. Final Act.
11 (citing Kremen col. 2—3, examples, and tables in col. 5—6). The
Examiner finds that these substances would have been understood in the art
to be fatliquoring agents at the time of Appellant’s invention, as
demonstrated by Ushakoff s disclosure that “fatliquoring agents are fatty
substances applied to the skin,” which the Examiner finds to be similar to
the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification that “[fjatliquors are agents that
lubricate, soften[,] or make more flexible or pliable the fibers of hides or
leathers.” Ans. 22 (citing Ushakoff col. 1,11. 20-35); Spec. 6,11. 3^4.
However, Ushakoff discloses that conventional fatting (fatliquoring)
agents include neats foot oil, cod liver oil, mineral oils, and vegetable oils
such as caster oil, peanut oil, and olive oil. Col. 3,11. 23—26. Ushakoff
14
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
further discloses that fatty acids such as lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic
acid, stearic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, and linolenic acid are particularly
preferred fatting agents. Col. 3,11. 26—30. Although Ushakoff discloses, as
the Examiner correctly finds, that “fatting of skins or leather consists in
general in the application of any of numerous oily, greasy, or fatty
substances to the wet skin,” and further discloses that “fatting is carried out
by applying an oil, grease or fat to the water-wet skin,” we find no
disclosure in Ushkoff indicating that ethers and alcohols, such as hexyl
cellosolve, hexyl carbitol, and dodecanol, could be used as fatting
(fatliquoring) agents. Ans. 22; Ushakoff col. 1,11. 21—29. Nor do we find
any such disclosure in Appellant’s Specification. Accordingly, contrary to
the Examiner’s assertions, Ushkoff and Appellant’s Specification do not
indicate that the hexyl cellosolve, hexyl carbitol, and dodecanol as disclosed
in Kremen could be used as fatting (fatliquoring) agents.
Consequently, the Examiner does not provide a reasoned explanation
supported by objective evidence establishing that Kremen’s disclosure of
treating a hide with hexyl cellosolve, hexyl carbitol, or dodecanol would
have fairly suggested a fatliquored hide to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Appellant’s invention, as required by independent claims 1, 2,
and 24. We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kremen in view of the
additional applied prior art references.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ushakoff in view of the additional applied
prior art references, and reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24
15
Appeal 2017-005429
Application 12/950,110
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kremen in view of the
additional applied prior art references.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16