Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

14117249 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/117,249 04/09/2014
23575 7590 12/17/2018
CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA
24500 CENTER RIDGE ROAD, SUITE 280
CLEVELAND, OH 44145
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaohui Hou
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.
COC.P70971 5625
EXAMINER
ABU ALI, SHUANGYI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2018 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):
docket@patentandtm.com
cortese@patentandtm.com
pair@patentandtm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOHUI HOU, TOMOMI SUGIYAMA,
JAN KLUEGGE, and AK.IRA OHTA
Appeal2018-000697
Application 14/117 ,249 1
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants seek our review of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 15-20. App. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Construction Research & Technology GmbH as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000697
Application 14/117 ,249
BACKGROUND
The claimed subject matter on appeal is directed to a process of
subjecting a molasses or molasses derivative-containing sugar-based
material to hydrolysis and then a sulfonation treatment. App. Br. 12 ( claim
1 ).
Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter,
and is copied below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A process for preparing an additive for cementitious
materials from a sugar-based material, which comprises the
following step:
subjecting the sugar-based material to a sulfonation
treatment;
wherein the sugar-based material comprises at least one of
molasses or molasses derivatives, and the sugar-based material
is subjected to an acid hydrolysis and/or alkali hydrolysis before
the sulfonation treatment.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a):
I. Claims 1, 5-8, and 15-20 as unpatentable over Steinberg2 in
view of Heidelberg; 3 and
II. Claim 2 as unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Heidelberg,
and further in view of Reddy, 4 and Rodrigues. 5
2 Steinberg et al., US 3,332,791; July 25, 1967.
3 Heidelberg et al., US 3,511,705; May 12, 1970.
4 Reddy et al., WO 2008/145975 Al; Dec. 4, 2008.
5 Rodrigues et al., US 2007/0015678 Al; Jan. 18, 2007.
2
Appeal2018-000697
Application 14/117 ,249
OPINION
Rejection I
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Steinberg discloses a
process for forming an additive that can be used in a cement slurry. Final 3.
In Steinberg's process, the Examiner finds that glucose is subjected to a
sulfonation treatment. Id. The Examiner finds further that Heidelberg
discloses that subjecting molasses to hydrolysis yields glucose as part of
invert sugar. Id. The Examiner determines that the skilled artisan would
have found it obvious to first hydrolyze Heidelberg's molasses to obtain
glucose, and then subject said glucose to Steinberg's sulfonation process
because doing so would "provide[] an additional use of a byproduct [i.e.,
molasses] rather than wasting it, and [because] it is a well-known process."
Id.
Appellants present arguments only directed to independent claim 1.
We, therefore, select this claim as representative and decide the appeal of
this rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that Steinberg teaches away from using reduced
sugars and partially hydrolyzed starches because they were known to be
"ineffective at improving workability and strength." App. Br. 6. Appellants
contend further that the Examiner's combination of Steinberg and
Heidelberg is improper because the combination "would render Steinberg
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" and "would change the principal of
operation of Steinberg." Id. at 7. In support of these contentions, Appellants
rely on Steinberg's teaching that using reduced sugars and hydrolyzed
starches previously failed in the production of dispersants that may be used
in cementitious compositions. Id. ( citing Steinberg 1:31-32). Appellants
3
Appeal2018-000697
Application 14/117 ,249
assert that "Steinberg suggests that hydrolyzed materials are not suitable"
and "discloses only 'glucose, sucrose, mannose, xylose, and arabinose' as
acceptable sugars for the dispersant." Id. at 8. Thus, Appellants assert that
using Heidelberg's hydrolyzed molasses in Steinberg's process would be
"wholly unpredictable." Id.
We find these arguments unpersuasive of reversible error. Appellants
focus their arguments on the portions of Steinberg that discuss drawbacks in
the prior art of using "various types of carbohydrates such as reducing
sugars, partially hydrolyzed starches, and the like" in cement slurries. Id. at
6-9. Such arguments are unpersuasive because they do not address the
totality of Steinberg's teaching. Specifically, Steinberg's invention includes
digesting a "suitable water-soluble carbohydrate ... in a solution of a water-
soluble alkali metal or ammonium sulfite or bisulfite." Steinberg 1 :53-56.
Such suitable carbohydrates include sugars such as glucose and sucrose, but
also include partially hydrolyzed starches. Id. at 1:58-59, 61---63. Thus,
Appellants' assertion that "Steinberg discloses only 'glucose, sucrose,
mannose, xylose, and arabinose' as acceptable sugars for the dispersant"
(App. Br. 8) is technically erroneous and is, therefore, unpersuasive.
Steinberg 1 : 61---63.
Because Appellants' arguments fail to reveal error in the rejection, we
sustain it.
Re} ection II
Appellants rely on the same arguments in support of reversal of this
rejection. App. Br. 9-10. We find such arguments unpersuasive for the
same reasons set forth above, and sustain the rejection of claim 2.
4
Appeal2018-000697
Application 14/117 ,249
DECISION
The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 15-20 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
5