10843889 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

Ex Parte Kesselmayer

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 23, 2010

10843889 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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. 10/843,889 05/12/2004 Mark Alan Kesselmayer A01520 5104 21898 7590 09/24/2010 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY PATENT DEPARTMENT 100 INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2399 EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1791 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2010 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 MARK ALAN KESSELMAYER ____________ Appeal 2009-010606 Application 10/843,889 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 11-13, 15, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-010606 Application 10/843,889 We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a method for bonding a rigid lineal substrate (e.g., wood) and a flexible wrap substrate with a moisture-reactive hot-melt adhesive composition formed by admixing a polyol, a polyisocyanate, and an amorphous non-reactive acrylic polymer (claim 1). Representative claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for bonding substrates comprising the steps of (a) heating a moisture-reactive hot-melt adhesive composition formed by a process comprising admixing components comprising at least one polyol; at least one polyisocyanate; at least one amorphous non-reactive acrylic polymer having a weight-average molecular weight of 40,000 or greater; 0.5% or less by weight reactive acrylic polymer, based on the weight of said hot-melt adhesive composition; and 5% or less by weight thermoplastic ethylene copolymer resins, based on the weight of said hot-melt adhesive composition; wherein said amorphous non-reactive acrylic polymer has no hydroxyl groups; b) contacting said heated hot-melt adhesive composition to at least one rigid lineal substrate and at least one flexible wrap substrate; (c) cooling, or allowing to cool, said heated hot-melt adhesive composition; and (d) reacting said hot-melt adhesive composition with water or allowing it to react with water; wherein said lineal substrate is selected from the group consisting of lineal substrates that have a cross section that includes at least one corner; lineal substrates that have a cross section that includes at least one face that is curved; and lineal substrates that have a cross section that includes at least one corner and at least one face that is curved; 2 Appeal 2009-010606 Application 10/843,889 wherein said step (b) comprises bending said flexible wrap to conform to the shape of said lineal substrate; wherein said hot-melt adhesive composition, after said step (d), is not a pressure-sensitive adhesive, and wherein said hot-melt adhesive composition does not include tackifying resin. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 11, 13, 15, 21, 24 as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art (APA) (Spec. 1, 4) in view of Rumack (US Patent 6,613,836 B2 issued September 2, 2003) and Talbot (US Patent 5,234,519 issued August 10, 1993) and rejects claims 8, 12, 20, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable over this prior art and further in view of any one of Brauer (US Patent 4,889,915 issued December 26, 1989), Hiraishi (US Patent 5,527,266 issued June 18, 1996), and Kimura (US Patent 5,747,627 issued May 5, 1998). We sustain each of these rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to argument expressed by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3-15). We add the following comments for emphasis. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the APA method of bonding a rigid lineal substrate and a flexible wrap substrate with a moisture-reactive hot-melt adhesive of the type disclosed by Rumack as Control Sample E (id. at para. bridging 3-4, para. bridging 4-5). This conclusion is based on, inter alia, the Examiner's finding that Rumack's disclosure would have suggested using the Sample E adhesive composition for wood veneering, which is a bonding application described for the inventive adhesive compositions of Rumack, since the compositions of Control Sample E and inventive Samples B-D all exhibit similar viscosity and peel rate properties (id.). 3 Appeal 2009-010606 Application 10/843,889 Appellant argues that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not draw any conclusion about the usefulness of Sample E based on comparisons with Samples B-D" (Reply Br. 4). This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner's undisputed finding that these samples share similar viscosity and peel rate properties would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the samples also share common uses. For this reason, an artisan would have considered Sample E to be useful for wood veneering based on a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, as properly concluded by the Examiner, it would have been obvious for the artisan to use Sample E for the veneering type of bonding performed by the method disclosed in the APA and claimed by Appellant. Appellant's remaining arguments are unconvincing for the reasons detailed in the Answer. The decision of the Examiner 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) (2008). AFFIRMED Ssl ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY PATENT DEPARTMENT 100 INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2399 4