Ex Parte NWACHUKWU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2018

13104396 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/104,396 05/10/2011
27752 7590 11/13/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chisomaga U gochi NWACHUKWU
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.
12117 1135
EXAMINER
KARPINSKI, LUKE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2018 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHISOMAGA UGOCHI NWACHUKWU
and ALAN EDWARD SHERRY
Appeal2017-010316
Application 13/104,396 1
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ELIZABETH A. LA VIER,
and JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
LA VIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants seek review of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11-15, and 17-21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates to methods for reducing particulates in the
air. Spec. 1 :4. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for reducing particulates in the air
comprising the steps of:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Proctor & Gamble
Company. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-0010316
Application 13/104,396
providing a composition, wherein said composition
comprises:
I) about 0.001 % to about 0.2%, by weight of said
composition, of a zwitterionic polymer, said zwitterionic-
polymer is:
with x having a mean value of Oto 50 mol%, y having a
mean value of 10 to 95 mol%, z having a mean value of 3 to 80
mol%, with x+y+z=100%, wherein x represents the mol% of
units derived from the acrylamide monomer, y represents the
mol % of units derived from the acrylic acid (sodium salt)
monomer, and z represents the mol % of units derived from the
Diquat monomer, wherein I, which are identical or different,
represent counterions;
II) a propellant comprising a compressed gas; and
III) an aqueous carrier, wherein said composition
comprises a viscosity of about 1.0 to about 2.5 cps; and
spraying said composition into the air such that said
polymer agglomerates particulates in the air when said
composition contacts particulates in the air.
Br. 14--15 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2017-0010316
Application 13/104,396
REJECTIONS MAINTAINED ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1, 11-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Sherry,2 Tippett, 3 Chang,4 and Valpey. 5
Ans. 2; Final Action 4.
2. Claims 1, 11-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Fox, 6 Tippett, Sherry, Hasan,7 and
Shannon. 8 Ans. 5; Final Action 9.
DISCUSSION
A. Rejection 1
Appellants argue, inter alia, that none of the cited references, alone or
in combination, teaches or suggests spraying a composition "into the air at a
level such that the composition agglomerates particulates in the air." Br. 6.
We agree. The Examiner's reliance on Tippett as teaching a method of
reducing particulates in the air (see Final Action 5; see also Ans. 2-3) is not
sufficiently supported. Specifically, the Examiner fails to cite any express
teaching or suggestion in Tippett of spraying Tippett's dust-suppression
compositions into the air rather than onto surfaces. The Examiner argues
that "common sense dictates" spraying dusty air in a coal mine as well as the
2 Sherry et al., US 2007/0110699 Al, published May 17, 2007.
3 Tippett et al., US 5,215,784, published June 1, 1993.
4 Chang et al., US 5,948,742, issued Sept. 7, 1999.
5 Valpey, III et al., US 8,550,171 B2, issued May 14, 2013.
6 Fox et al., WO 97/28883, published Aug. 14, 1997.
7 Hasan et al., WO 02/28179 Al, published Apr. 11, 2002.
8 Shannon, US 2003/0168642 Al, published Sept. 11, 2003.
3
Appeal2017-0010316
Application 13/104,396
surfaces, and that it would have been "obvious to spray a dust suppression
composition into or over any dust cloud with a trajectory that would further
result in saturation of the dust producing material." Ans. 2. But even if it
would have been obvious to spray air as well as surfaces, it does not
necessarily follow that it would have been obvious to use the same
compositions for both applications. To be sure, the Examiner does not rely
on Tippett for the components of the composition to be sprayed. See Final
Action 5---6. But missing from the record (whether in the cited passages of
Tippett or the other references) is support for the inference that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect compositions formulated
to suppress dust on surfaces to likewise succeed in suppressing airborne
particulates. Therefore, on this record, we cannot sustain Rejection 1.
B. Rejection 2
In Rejection 2, the Examiner begins with Fox, which expressly
teaches methods for precipitating airborne particles. Final Action 9 ( citing
Fox Abstract, pp. 2, 4). However, as the Examiner acknowledges, Fox
teaches "a different mechanism of precipitation" (Ans. 5), insofar as Fox
imparts a unipolar charge to the liquid droplets, which is "transferred
between the liquid droplets and the airborne particles by contact which
causes the airborne particles to precipitate due to mutual repulsion" (Fox
Abstract). In the Examiner's view, "the basic premise of the methods is the
same" (Ans. 5), but the mechanism matters. It is not clear from the record
why Fox's teaching of using charged particles would motivate or otherwise
guide the ordinarily skilled artisan in developing a polymer-based
composition for agglomerating particulates. See Br. 11. As with Rejection
4
Appeal2017-0010316
Application 13/104,396
1, the Examiner relies on Tippett as teaching a method for spraying a liquid
formulation in the air to precipitate particulates. See Ans. 6. And as with
Rejection 1, we find the Examiner's analysis leans too heavily on inferences
drawn from Tippett rather than Tippett itself. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain Rejection 2 on this record.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 11-15, and 17-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
5