Ex Parte Remillard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2013

11556243 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

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.
11/556,243 11/03/2006 INV001Jeffrey Remillard 81137368 8291
28395 7590 03/19/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2013 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 JEFFREY REMILLARD, KENNETH NIETERING,
MARK NICHOLS, and JOHN GINDER
____________

Appeal 2011-004514
Application 11/556,243
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 and 25-29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
Appeal 2011-004514
Application 11/556,243

2
1. A reflective clear coat composition comprising:
a clear coat composition including a polymeric binder comprised of
one or more resins; and
reflective flakes including a first type of reflective flake having a
reflectivity of at least 30% in a first range of the near infrared radiation
(NIR) region of the solar radiation spectrum and a second type of reflective
flake having reflectivity of at least 30% in a second range of the NIR region
of the solar radiation spectrum, the first range of the NIR region being
different from the second range, the first type of reflective flake and the
second type of reflective flake having a reflectivity in the visible region of
the solar radiation spectrum in the range of 0% to 29%, the reflective clear
coat composition being directly applied to and separate from a pigment
coating layer.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hesch 2005/0140180 A1 Jun. 30, 2005
Raksha 2005/0132929 A1 Jun. 23, 2005
D.A. Ansdell Paint and Surface CoatingsTheory and Practice,
Automotive Paints, 411-451(R. Lambourne and T.A. Strivens, eds.
William Andrews Publishing. 1999).

Appeal 2011-004514
Application 11/556,243

3
THE REJECTION1
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 and 25-29 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hesch in view of
Raksha and further in view of Ansdell.
ANALYSIS

We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer.
We are not convinced otherwise by Appellants’ arguments that
multiple types of reflective flakes are not suggested by the applied art. Br.
8-9. As the Examiner explains on pages 4 and 7 of the Answer, because
Raksha teaches flakes that reflect different portions of the infrared range, it
would have been obvious to have used more than one type of flake of
Raksha as the additive in Hesch to result in a large portion of incident IR
being reflected to serve the purposes of Hesch. In this context, we note that
a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the Examiner
demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods. KSR Int’l.
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United
Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(“If a person of
ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that

1 Claims 28 and 29 are objected to under to under 37 C.F.R. 1.75(c). As
pointed out by the Examiner on page 6 of the Answer, an objection to a
claim is petitionable and not appealable.

Appeal 2011-004514
Application 11/556,243

4
invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and
achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely
would have been obvious.”).
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

tc