12165051 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2013)

Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 2013

12165051 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/165,051 06/30/2008 Fengkui Li COS-1125 1333 25264 7590 05/02/2013 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC PO BOX 674412 HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412 EXAMINER BOYLE, ROBERT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1764 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FINA TECHNOLOGY INC. Inventors: Fengkui Li, Tim J. Coffy and Michel Daumerie ____________________ Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before FRED E. McKELVEY, RICHARD TORCZON and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Statement of the case Fina Technology Inc. (“applicant”), the real party in interest (Brief, 1 page 3), seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection dated 2 23 February 2011. 3 The application on appeal was filed in the USPTO on 30 June 2008. 4 The application has been published as U.S. Patent Application 5 Publication 2009/0362152 A1. 6 In support of prior art rejections, the Examiner relies on the following 7 evidence. 8 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 2 Sinclair U.S. Patent 5,216,050 01 Jun. 1993 Kotlar et al. “Kotlar” U.S. Patent 6,028,146 22 Feb. 2000 Nakagawa et al. “Nakagawa” U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0076880 A1 27 Mar. 2008 filed 18 Sept. 2007 Sano et al. “Sano 1” U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0264591 A1 22 Oct. 2009 filed 23 Feb. 2009 Sano et al. “Sano 2” PCT Published Application WO 2008/023758 A1 28 Feb. 2008 Sano 2 is prior art because it was published on 28 February 2008 1 prior to applicant’s filing date of 30 June 2008. 2 Sano 2 is written in Japanese. Sano 1 is a non-prior art English-3 language equivalent of Sano 2. Applicant and the Examiner refer to 4 English-language Sano 1 and so shall we. 5 The Nakagawa publication is prior art because the application on 6 which it is based was filed on 18 September 2007 prior to applicant’s filing 7 date of 30 June 2008. 8 Applicant attempted to antedate Sano 2 and Nakagawa under 9 Rule 131. The Examiner held that applicant’s Rule 131 showing was not 10 sufficient. See Advisory Action dated 31 May 2011, pages 2-3. On 11 appeal, applicant does not challenge the Examiner’s decision holding the 12 Rule 131 showing to be insufficient. Accordingly, on appeal Sano 2 and 13 Nakagawa are prior art. 14 Applicant does not contest the prior art status of Sinclair, Kotlar or 15 Chawla, all of which are statutory bars. 16 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 3 In this opinion, we mention the following additional evidence which 1 was called to the attention of the PTO in the Specification or an Information 2 Disclosure Statement. 3 Sun et al. “Sun” 229 ANGEW. MAKROMOL. CHEMIE, Melt free-radical grafting of glycidyl methacrylate onto polypropylene 1 1995 Chen et al. “Chen” 36 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, Melt Grafting of Glycidyl Methacrylate Onto Polypropylene and Reactive Compatibilization of Rubber Toughened Polypropylene 1594 1996 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 4 Claims on appeal 5 Claims 1, 4-5, 11 and 32 are on appeal. Brief, page 5; Answer, 6 page 3. 7 The rejections 8 In the Answer, the Examiner has maintained the following rejections: 9 Rejection 1: All claims on appeal stand rejected as unpatentable 10 under § 103 over Sano 2 and Chawla. Answer, page 5. 11 Rejection 2: All claims on appeal stand rejected as unpatentable 12 under § 103 over Kakagawa and Chawla. Answer, page 7. 13 Rejection 3: All claims on appeal stand rejected as unpatentable 14 under § 103 over Sinclair and Kotlar. Answer, page 10. 15 With respect to all three rejections applicant does argue that Claims 16 4-5, 11 or 32 are patentable apart from arguments presented with respect 17 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 4 to Claim 1. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal on the basis of Claim 1. 1 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 2 Invention 3 The invention is readily understood from Claim 1 on appeal. 4 Claim 1, which we reproduce from the Claim Appendix of the Brief 5 (page 15), reads [matter in brackets and some indentation added; principal 6 limitations in issue in italics]: 7 A composition comprising a blend of [1] a polyolefin, 8 [2] polylactic acid, and [3] a reactive modifier, wherein: 9 [1] said polyolefin comprises polypropylene in an amount 10 of from 51 wt.% to 99 wt.%; 11 [2] said polylactic acid is present in an amount from 12 1 wt.% to 40 wt.%, and 13 [3] said reactive modifier comprises an epoxy 14 functionalized polyolefin in an amount of from 0.5 wt.% to 15 15 wt.% 16 [the weight percentages of [1], [2] and [3] being] based on 17 the total weight of the composition, and wherein 18 said epoxy functionalized polyolefin comprises 19 glycidyl methacrylate grafted polypropylene and 20 said epoxy functionalized polyolefin has a grafting 21 yield of from 0.2 wt.% to 15 wt.%. 22 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 5 Analysis 1 Prior art 2 Sinclair 3 In 1993, Sinclair described blends comprising: 4 (1) poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and 5 (2) a polymer selected from the group consisting of 6 (a) polystyrene (PS), (b) polyethylene (PE), (c) polyethylene 7 terephthalate (PET) and (d) polypropylene (PP). 8 Col. 4:13-16. Blends having 90 wt.% and 75 wt.% polypropylene and 9 10 wt.% and 75 wt.% poly(lactic acid), respectively, are described in 10 Table 1 (col. 7). 11 Sinclair states that a polystyrene/poly(lactic acid) “blend is apparently 12 very compatible.” Col. 4:65. However, Sinclair teaches those skilled in the 13 art recognize that “proportions of poly(lactic acid) and the added polymer 14 can vary widely depending on their mutual solubilities.” Col. 10:35-37. 15 Solubilities are in turn said to vary with the thoroughness of mixing and 16 mixing temperature. Col. 10:38-39. Use of a solvent to achieve mixing is 17 said to be impractical from a commercial point of view. Col. 10:41-42. At 18 the end of the day, one skilled in the art is taught that physical mixing must 19 be controlled to achieve an intimate dispersion. Col. 10:42-45. However, 20 even with intimate mixing, the mixture may still separate into relatively large 21 heterogeneous domains resulting in what Sinclair characterizes as a 22 “cheesy” mixture or a blend with poor properties. Col. 10:46-51. 23 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 6 Sinclair differs from the subject matter of Claim 1 in that Sinclair does 1 not describe the use of applicant’s claimed “reactive modifier”, i.e., the 2 claimed epoxy functionalized polyolefin. Answer, page 10. 3 Kotlar 4 In 2000, Kotler described applicant’s claimed reactive monomer, i.e., 5 the epoxy functionalized polypropylene. 6 Polypropylene is mixed with 7 (1) a peroxide initiator (col. 2:39), 8 (2) unsaturated monomer having epoxy groups 9 (col. 2:25), preferably glycidyl methacrylate (col. 3:22-23) and 10 (3) a styrene monomer, preferably styrene (col. 3:34). 11 An advantage of including styrene is minimizing degradation due to 12 β-scission during free radical initiated grafting of monomers onto 13 polypropylene. Col. 2:6-11. Kotlar explains (col. 4:39-48): 14 The polymer chain scissions and the molecular weights of 15 the . . . compositions can be controlled by the use of the 16 [styrene] comonomer system described herein. In the grafting 17 reactions taking place the styrenic compound will function as a 18 chain transfer agent. When the grafting is performed at the 19 conditions of operation described herein, the degradation of the 20 polypropylene backbone chain by β-scission will be significantly 21 lower than what can be achieved in traditional grafting 22 processes without the use of a chain transfer compound. 23 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 7 The Kotlar compositions “may be used as a compatibilizer in the 1 manufacturing of a polymer blend. Col. 2:51-52. See also col. 5:25-27): 2 “[t]he composition obtained . . . [by this] invention is particularly suitable as 3 a compatibilizing precursor in polymer blends of various types.” 4 Chawla 5 In 2007, more than one year before applicant’s filing date, Chawla 6 acknowledges prior grafting of GMA (glycidyl methacrylate) onto PP 7 (polypropylene) using conventional methods. Page 3578, col. 2, last ¶. 8 For example, Chawla mentions prior efforts by Liu et al.1 reporting 9 grafting of GMS onto PP using peroxide initiators. Id. Liu et al. is said to 10 have used grafted PP in compatibilization of PP blends with nitrile rubbers. 11 Id. at 3578-79. 12 Chawla also mentions Sun et al. (Sun). Sun is said to have studied 13 melt grafting of GMA onto PP in the presence of a comonomer styrene, 14 which is said to have improved the grafting yield and reduced chain 15 degradation. Chawla, page 3579, col. 2, first ¶, citing a 1995 publication by 16 Sun et al., 229 ANGEW. MAKROMOL. CHEM. 1-13 (1995). Sun (1) is 17 mentioned at page 25, ¶ 0071 in the Specification, as describing a method 18 for determining “grafting yield”, and (2) was provided by applicant to the 19 PTO in an Information Disclosure Statement.2 20 1 Liu et al. is not of record in the application on appeal. 2 A review of Sun confirms what Chawla had to say about efforts by Sun. Grafting of monomers onto polyolefins is said to have gained wide Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 8 Using chemical structural formulas, Chawla schematically describes a 1 grafting mechanism for grafting GMA onto PP. 2 Sano 2 3 Sano 2, published in February 2008 less than one year prior to 4 applicant’s filing date, describes thermoplastic resin compositions 5 comprising the following elements: 6 (1) a polyolefin component (ii); the polyolefin may be 7 polypropylene. ¶¶ 0023, 0025, 0026, 0093 (Example 1) 8 (citations are to English-language Sano 1); 9 (2) a polylactic acid component (i). ¶¶0014, 0015, 0093 10 (Example 1); and 11 (3) a compatibilizer component (iii); the compatibilizer 12 component can be a functional group-containing polymer in 13 industrial application. Sun, page 2. One of the applications is said to functionalize polyolefins for subsequent reactive blending of other polymers in order to form compatibilized polymer blends. Id. An object of the Sun studies was to grafting of GMA onto polypropylene through free-radical chemistry to achieve “high grafting yields and reduced chain degradation”. Id. at 3. The objectives of Sun appear to have been achieved via including of styrene. Id. A study by Chen (also cited by applicant to the PTO in an Information Disclosure Statement) reported in 1996 appears to be consistent with Sun. According to Chen, many polymers are immiscible. Chen, 1594, col. 1. “A common compatibilization strategy was to introduce a block copolymer with the blocks chemically identical to, or miscible with, the respective blend components.” Id. at col. 2. Chen studied block copolymers of polypropylene grafted with GMA in a process also using styrene. See Chen, Abstract. Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 9 which the functional group, designated as “X”, is an epoxy 1 group. ¶¶ 0029, 0030. 2 According to Sano 1 (¶ 0029): 3 The components (i) and (ii) exhibit improved mutual solubility 4 due to the [compatibilizer] component (iii) that improves 5 interaction with the component (i) so that a thermoplastic resin 6 composition that exhibits high ductility, high impact resistance, 7 excellent moldability, and excellent appearance can be 8 obtained. 9 Applicant’s epoxy functionalized polyolefin, like component (iii) of 10 Sano 1, is described as a compatibilizer. Specification, page 21, ¶ 0060. 11 Sano 1 differs from the subject matter of Claim 1 in that Sano 1 does 12 not explicitly describe the claimed “epoxy functionalized polyolefin.” 13 Answer, page 5. 14 Nakagawa 15 Nakagawa filed in 2007 describes thermoplastic resin compositions 16 comprising the following elements: 17 (1) a polyolefin component (B); the polyolefin is 18 polypropylene. ¶¶ 0009, 0030, 0091 (Examples); 19 (2) a polylactic acid component (A). ¶¶0009, 0025, 0091 20 (Examples); and 21 (3) a compatibilizer component (C2); the compatibilizer 22 component can be a functional group-containing polymer 23 comprising a polyethylene modified with an epoxy modifier, 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 10 including a graft copolymer of ethylene and glycidyl 1 methacrylate (GMA), such as commercially available 2 BondFirst2B from Sumitomo Chemical Ltd. ¶¶ 0009, 0038, 3 Table 1 (note *f). 4 According to Nakagawa (¶ 0010): 5 In addition, the . . . modified polyolefin (C2) shows compatibility 6 or dispersibility with both of the polylactic acid based resin (A) 7 and polypropylene (B) . . . .” 8 Applicant’s epoxy functionalized polyolefin, like component (C2) of 9 Nakagawa, is described as functioning as a compatibilizer. Specification, 10 page 21, ¶ 0060. 11 Nakagawa differs from the subject matter of Claim 1 in that 12 Nakagawa does not explicitly describe an “epoxy functionalized polyolefin” 13 having the “claimed grafting yield.” Answer, page 8. 14 Level of skill in the art 15 Based on the prior art of record, a person having ordinary skill in the 16 art would have been aware of several significant scientific matters, 17 including the following: 18 (1) as early as 1993, blends of polypropylene and 19 poly(lactic acid) were known and one skilled in the art would 20 have known that if an intimate mixture of a blend could be 21 achieved then useful products could be made (Sinclair); 22 (2) as early as 1995-1996 one skilled in the art would 23 have known that it could be difficult to blend certain polymers 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 11 due to immiscibility of polymers being blended (Sinclair; 1 Chawla—referring to Sun); 2 (3) as early as 1997, and possibly earlier, one skilled in 3 the art would have known that polypropylene grafted with 4 glycidyl methacrylate could be used as a compatibilizer for 5 blending various polymers (Kotlar); 6 (4) as early as 1997, one skilled in the art would have 7 known that blending could be assisted with the use of a 8 compatibilizer (Kotlar; Chawla—referring to Sun); 9 (5) as early as 2007, one skilled in the art would have 10 known that graft copolymers of GMA onto polypropylene having 11 “high grafting yields” were being considered for 12 compatibilization of polypropylene based polymer blends 13 (Chawla—referring to Sun). 14 (5) in 2007 and 2008, one skilled in the art would have 15 known that compatibilizers could be used to achieve good 16 blend mixtures of polypropylene and poly(lactic acid), albeit 17 compatibilizers different from that claimed by applicant (Sano 18 and Nakagawa). 19 Discussion 20 Overall view 21 Based on the record before us, it is apparent that applicant has used 22 a known compatibilizer for its intended purpose to accomplish making 23 satisfactory blends of polypropylene and poly(lactic acid). Use of known 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 12 materials for their intended purpose is evidence of obviousness. KSR Int’l 1 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“combination of familiar 2 elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious); Anderson’s-3 Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62 (1969). 4 Rejection 3 5 The fact pattern in this case for Rejection 3 is similar to the fact 6 pattern in Anderson’s-Black Rock. The patent involved in Anderson’s-7 Black Rock was directed to an apparatus, combining on one chassis, (1) a 8 radiant-heat burner, (2) a spreader, and (3) a tamper and screed. 396 U.S. 9 at 58. The apparatus could be used to create what is known as a cold joint 10 when laying asphalt. Id. Known in the art was apparatus combining on 11 one chassis both (a) a spreader and (b) a tamper and screed. Id. Also 12 known in the art was the use of a radiant-heat burner for patching limited 13 areas of asphalt. Id. at 58-59. Each of the claimed elements was known in 14 the art and was used in the combination for its known purpose. Id. at 59. 15 The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in 16 one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not 17 produce a new or different function. Id. at 60. The combination of old 18 elements added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner 19 already known. Id. at 62. 20 In the case before us, Claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising 21 (1) a poly(lactic acid)—corresponding to Anderson’s radiant-heat burner, 22 (2) a polypropylene—corresponding to Anderson’s spreader, and (3) an 23 epoxy functionalized reactive modifier—corresponding to Anderson’s 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 13 tamper and screed. Known in the art were blends of poly(lactic acid) and 1 polypropylene. Sinclair. Also known in the art was the use of epoxy 2 functionalized reactive modifiers to accomplish compatibilization. Kotlar. 3 Each of applicant’s claimed elements was known in the art and is used in 4 combination for its known purpose. Id. at 59. The combination of putting 5 poly(lactic acid), polypropylene and an epoxy functionalized modifier in a 6 single composition did not produce a new or different function. Applicant’s 7 combination of old elements added nothing to the nature and quality of the 8 compositions already known. 9 Applicant argues that there is no “motivation” to add a reactive 10 modifier to the Sinclair composition. Brief, page 13. In this post-KSR era, 11 we construe applicant’s argument to be that one skilled in the art would not 12 have had a legitimate reason to add Kotlar’s compatibilizer to the Sinclair 13 blend. 14 However, in 1993 Sinclair teaches that an intimate blend is desirable 15 and that it is not obtained absent intimate mixing. One skilled in the art 16 based on Kotlar’s post-Sinclair teaching would have readily understood as 17 of at least 2000 that a compatibilizer, such as that described by Kotlar, 18 reasonably would have been expected to aid in achieving intimate mixing. 19 The record provides a sufficient “rational underpinning” to support the 20 Examiner’s combination of Sinclair and Kotlar to meet the limitations of 21 Claim 1. KSR at 418. 22 Applicant attacks the combination on the ground that Kotlar includes 23 styrene along with polypropylene and glycidyl methacrylate to make its 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 14 compatibilizer. Brief, page 13. We see no limitation in Claim 1 which 1 would exclude the presence of some styrene. The Examiner responding to 2 applicant’s attack notes that Kotlar teaches that the amount of styrene can 3 vary from 0% to 10%. A compatibilizer “made” with 0% styrene would not 4 have any styrene. 5 Applicant maintains that its Specification demonstrates that there is a 6 ~100% grafting efficiency with a grafting yield at 2-3% GMA. Kotlar is said 7 to disclose only an 8-35% GMA grafting efficiency. Brief, page 13. 8 Assuming that the Specification says what applicant says it says, 9 applicant’s argument is not convincing. Limitations from the Specification 10 are not read into the claims. Answer, page 18. The claims contain no 11 grafting efficiency limitation. Nor has applicant convincingly established 12 experimentally that the grafting efficiencies of Kotlar do not result in the 13 claimed grating yields. 14 Rejection 3 is affirmed. 15 Rejections 1 and 2 16 While affirmance of Rejection 3 disposes of the appeal, we elect to 17 address Rejections 1 and 2 because they are based on a different rationale 18 than Rejection 3. 19 Sano 1 and Nakagawa describe a combination of (1) poly(lactic acid), 20 (2) polypropylene and (3) a compatibilizer. Both differ from the subject 21 matter of Claim 1 in that neither describes the use of applicant’s particular 22 reactive modifier. 23 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 15 Chawla teaches that polypropylenes grafted with GMA are known 1 compatibilizers. Chawla, pages 3578-79. Chawla’s teaching is confirmed 2 by Sun to which Chawla makes reference. 3 As in the case of Sinclair and Kotlar, it appears that applicant is using 4 a known compatibilizer in place of those described by Sano 1 and 5 Nakagawa to achieve an expected result—a good blend of poly(lactic acid) 6 and polypropylene. 7 Applicant argues that Sano 1 does not describe its claimed reactive 8 modifier. The Examiner agrees. To overcome the difference, the Examiner 9 turned to Chawla. Applicant attacks Chawla on the ground that the method 10 used by Chawla to graft GMA onto polypropylene is different. The 11 Examiner notes that the claimed subject matter is a composition—not a 12 method. Answer, page 12. Moreover, the Examiner points to the first 13 paragraph of Chawla which teaches that an improvement of the use of 14 polypropylene is to graft GMA onto the polypropylene. Answer, page 13. 15 The Examiner also found, correctly, that Chawla’s polypropylene grafted 16 with GMA is known to have been used in the reactive compatibilization of 17 polypropylene blends. Answer, page 16. See also the paragraph of 18 Chawla bridging pages 3578-79. 19 Applicant further argues that one skilled in the art would not have had 20 a reasonable expectation of success. Brief, page 11. We disagree. Both 21 Sano 1 and Nakagawa teach the use of a compatibilizer. Chawla (as well 22 as other prior art in the record) teach that applicant’s claimed reactive 23 modifier is a known compatibilizer. On the record before us, we find that 24 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 16 one skilled in the art would have expected a polypropylene grafted with 1 GMA to have been a suitable compatibilizer for use in place of those 2 described by Sano 1 and Nakagawa. Cf. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 3 11 How. (52 U.S.) 248 (1850) (substitution of clay knobs for metal or wood 4 knobs held to “lack invention” (i.e., in today’s language held to have been 5 obvious). 6 Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would distinguish between 7 propylene and polyethylene when it comes to grafting either with GMA. 8 Brief, page 12. Applicant further argues that Nakagawa does not describe 9 the claimed grafting yields. Id. The fact that Nakagawa describes 10 alternative polypropylene and polyethylene embodiments does not mean 11 that the polypropylene embodiment is rendered irrelevant. As noted by the 12 Examiner, Nakagawa describes a polypropylene embodiment. Answer, 13 page 15. The Examiner has relied upon Chawla, not Nakagawa to meet 14 the grafting yield limitation. 15 Rejections 2 and 3 are affirmed. 16 Other arguments 17 We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find 18 none that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejections. Cf. In re Antor 19 Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 20 Decision 21 Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given herein, it 22 is 23 Appeal 2012-003023 Application 12/165,051 17 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting the 1 claims on appeal under § 103 over Sano 2 and Chawla is affirmed. 2 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting the 3 claims on appeal under § 103 over Nakagawa and Chawla is affirmed. 4 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting the 5 claims on appeal under § 103 over Sinclair and Kotlar is affirmed. 6 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any 7 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 8 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 9 AFFIRMED 10 cc: PTO-90 11 12 13 cam 14 Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. 12/165,051 Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. 2012-003023 Examiner Art Unit Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Name Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U Sun et al., 229 Andew. Makromol. Chemie, “Melt free-radical grafting of glycidyl methacrylate onto polypropylene 1” (1995) V Chem et al., 36 Polymer Engineering and Science, “Melt Grafting of Glycidyl Methacrylate Onto Polypropylene and Reactive Compatibilization of Rubber Toughened Polypropylene 1594” (1996) W X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.