Ex Parte Kuehn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

13524059 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

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.
13/524,059 06/15/2012 Hartmut KUEHN 65765 1244
21898 7590 04/21/2017
ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY
c/o The Dow Chemical Company
P.O. Box 1967
2040 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48641
EXAMINER
BROOKS, KREGGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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):
FFUIMPC@dow.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARTMUT KUEHN, MARGARITA PERELLO, and
EVA-MARIE MICHALSKI
Appeal 2016-001546
Application 13/524,059
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—7 and 10-12. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Dow Global Technologies LLC
(Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-001546
Application 13/524,059
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A polymer composition comprising:
At least one epoxy resin;
(b) at least one vinyl ester polymer selected from
(i) a vinyl ester homopolymer,
(ii) vinyl ester copolymers comprising in polymerized form
only vinyl ester monomers, and
(iii) ethylene/vinyl ester copolymers comprising in polymerized
form ethylene and vinyl ester monomer(s) and optional ethylenically
unsaturated comonomers which are not vinyl esters; and
(c) at least one epoxy functional nonionic surfactant having a
molecular weight within the range of from 1,000 to 7,000 Daltons
which is different from an alkyl polyglycol ether or alkylaryl
polyglycol ether having 8 to 40 ethylene oxide units.
The Examiner’s rejections rely on either one of Kohlhammer (US
6,534,177 B2, iss. Mar. 18, 2003) or Faatz (US 2010/0197831 Al, pub. Aug.
5, 2010) each in view of Piechocki (US 5,118,729, iss. June 2, 1992), with
the rejection of dependent claim 4 further including Han (WO 02/28798 A2,
pub. Apr. 11, 2002) (see, e.g., Br. 4 (which includes a complete listing of the
rejections)).
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellants’
contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed July 9, 2015, we determine
that Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections (e.g., Ans. 2—11 (mailed Sept. 21, 2015)). We sustain the
rejection for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants have not adequately
addressed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on Kohlhammer and
Piechocki (Ans. 9 (explaining that Appellants’ argument focuses on a
2
Appeal 2016-001546
Application 13/524,059
limitation only present in dependent claim 2 which was not included in this
rejection); see generally Br. (no reply brief was filed)).
Appellants have also not refuted the Examiner’s determination that
Piechocki teaches an epoxy functional nonionic surfactant having a
molecular weight as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 10). Nor have Appellants
shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that “Piechocki
further teaches that such surfactants are useful for emulsifying epoxy resins
in water, which is the ultimate end use of the epoxy compositions taught by
Kohlhammer and Faatz (both of which teach epoxy powders redispersible in
water).” (Id.)
Appellants have also not shown error in the Examiner’s determination
with respect to claim 4, that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more
than ordinary creativity, would have used some of the higher molecular
weight nonionic surfactant of Han along with the nonionic surfactant of
Piechocki in the epoxy compositions of either Kohlhammer or Faatz, as each
surfactant was known for use in dispersing epoxy resins (Ans. 10, 11; see
generally Br.). Cf. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (“It is
[generally considered] prima facie obvious to combine two compositions
each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in
order to form a composition which is to be used for the very same
purpose.”).
In light of the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 9—
11; Br. 4—6), Appellants have not shown any reversible error in the
Examiner’s 103 rejections.
3
Appeal 2016-001546
Application 13/524,059
DECISION
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).
AFFIRMED
4