Ex Parte Ringot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14116112 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/116,112 02/03/2014 Claude Ringot
35161 7590 07/11/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye St., NW
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
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.
338180-01003 1074
EXAMINER
KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1767
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 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 CLAUDE RINGOT
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1--4, 6, 11, 12, and 14--17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed November 6, 2013
("Spec."), the Final Office Action appealed from dated May 18, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 28, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated December 8, 2016 ("Ans.") and the Reply Brief
filed February 2, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is Applicant, Compagnie Generale des Establissments Michelin,
who along with Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. are the real parties in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a tire with a tread comprising
an emulsion styrene-butadiene copolymer having a high trans content that
"improve[ s] in the grip properties, particularly on wet ground, without
significantly damaging the rolling resistance." Spec. 1-2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A tire, a tread of the tire comprising a rubber composition
compnsmg:
from 40 to 100 phr of an emulsion styrene/butadiene
copolymer (E-SBR), wherein a content of trans-1,4-butadienyl
units is greater than 50% by weight, based on the total of
butadienyl units in the (E-SBR);
from O to 60 phr of polybutadiene, optionally in
combination with another diene elastomer, selected from the
group consisting of natural rubber, synthetic polyisoprenes,
butadiene copolymers, isoprene copolymers, and combinations
thereof;
from 90 to 150 phr of a reinforcing inorganic filler,
wherein the reinforcing inorganic filler is silica;
a plasticizing system comprising:
a hydrocarbon resin A exhibiting a Tg of greater than
20°C in an amount between 10 and 60 phr, wherein the
hydrocarbon resin (A) is selected from the group consisting of
cyclopentadiene homopolymer or copolymer resins,
dicyclopentadiene homopolymer or copolymer resins, terpene
homopolymer or copolymer resins, Cs fraction homopolymer or
copolymer resins, C9 fraction homopolymer or copolymer
resins, a-methylstyrene homopolymer or copolymer resins, and
combinations thereof;
a plasticizer B which is liquid at 20°C, and exhibits a Tg
of less than -20°C in an amount between 10 and 60 phr selected
from the group consisting of liquid diene polymers, polyolefin
oils, naphthenic oils, paraffinic oils, DAE oils, MES oils,
TDAE oils, RAE oils, TRAE oils, SRAE oils, mineral oils,
vegetable oils, ether plasticizers, ester plasticizers, phosphate
plasticizers, sulphonate plasticizers, and combinations thereof;
2
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
wherein the total amounts of plasticizers A and B is
between 50 and 100 phr.
Appeal Br. 19--20 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections3:
A. Claims 1--4, 6, 11, 12, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Vasseur. 4 Final
Act. 4.
B. Claims 1--4, 6, 11, 12, and 14--16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Lopitaux. 5 Id. at
7.
Appellant requests our reversal of Rejections A and B. Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant presents argument for claim 1 and do not separately argue the
dependent claims. See id. at 10, 17. Therefore, consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to
claim 1, and all other claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
3 The Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 fourth
paragraph as being of improper dependent form or failing to further limit the
subject matter of the claim from which it depends (Final Act. 3) was
overcome by an amendment to claim 1 (see Amendment after Final Notice
of Appeal, dated October 13, 2016) entered by the Examiner (see Advisory
Action dated October 25, 2016).
4 Vasseur et al., US 2004/0127617 Al, published July 1, 2004 ("Vasseur").
5 Lopitaux et al., WO 2010/105984 Al, published September 23, 2010, and
corresponding English equivalent, US 2012/0065292 Al, published March
15, 2012 ("Lopitaux").
3
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
OPINION
Rejection A- Obviousness over Vasseur (claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, and 17)
The Examiner rejects claim 1, among others, as obvious over Vasseur.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Vasseur teaches a tire tread
composition similar to that claimed. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner
acknowledges that while not meeting the standard of anticipation,
in light of the overlap between the claimed composition and the
composition disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of
criticality for the presently claimed composition, it ... would
have been within the bounds of routine experimentation, as well
as the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the
composition which is both disclosed by the reference and
encompassed within the scope of the present claims an[ d]
thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Id. at 5. 6
Appellant presents several arguments, including that Vasseur fails to
teach multiple aspects of the claims as well as "unexpected results ... due to
the combination of a specific amount of the specific diene elastomers, the
specific, large amount of reinforcing inorganic filler, and the specific, large
amount of a plasticizing system containing a specific amount and type of
hydrocarbon resin and a specific amount and type of liquid plasticizer."
Appeal Br. 4--10.
First, Appellant argues that "Vasseur et al. fails to disclose a
plasticizer B which is liquid at 20QC and exhibits a Tg of less than -20!!C in
6 Even though the Examiner suggests that a person skilled in the art would,
through routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention, the
Examiner makes clear that the basis for the rejection is not the presence of
result effective variables but rather, relies on the recited amounts and
overlapping ranges to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for both
Rejections A and B. See generally Ans.
4
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
an amount between 10 and 60 phr." Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant
argues that the Examiner failed to show that the glycerol trioleate has a glass
transition temperature of less than -20QC. Id.
Appellant's argument fails to identify error in the Examiner's
rejection. The Examiner relies on Vasseur's teaching of glycerol trioleate in
an amount of 10 to 40 phr-and taught by the instant Specification as a
suitable plasticizer B--to show that "a plasticizer B which is liquid at 20QC
and exhibits a Tg of less than -20!!C in an amount between 10 and 60 phr"
is present in Vasseur. Final Act. 5; see Vasseur ,r,r 64, 67, 69-70
(identifying glycerol fatty acids, including glycerol trioleate ). To that end,
the Specification states that "liquid plasticizers selected from the group
consisting of ester plasticizers, phosphate plasticizers, sulphonate
plasticizers and the mixtures of these compounds are also suitable" and
trimester plasticizers may include glycerol triesters, including triesteroleates.
See Spec. 10-11; see also id. at 11 ("Mention may in particular be made,
among the triesters, of glycerol triesters, preferably predominantly
composed ... of an unsaturated C18 fatty acid, that is to say selected from the
group consisting of oleic acid"). Because Appellant identifies glycerol
trioleate as a suitable plasticizer, the Examiner has reason to find that the
plasticizer of Vasseur meets the claimed requirements of being liquid at
20QC and exhibiting a Tg of less than -20QC. Appellant's arguments fail to
show the Examiner's finding is unreasonable or that glycerol trioleate is not
a liquid at 20QC with a Tg of less than -20QC. 7 Therefore, on this record, the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner.
7 We also observe that Vasseur describes that a resin, having a high Tg, may
be used to raise "the Tg of a composition comprising essentially glycerol
5
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Second Appellant asserts that "Vasseur et al. does not teach a total
amount of plasticizers A and B of between 50 and 100 phr, as recited in
claim 1." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant acknowledges that the total of resin A
and plasticizing agent B together may amount to 15---60 phr, but contends
that "there is absolutely no indication that the total amount of A+ B has to
be between 50 and 100 phr." Id. Appellant also argues that none of the
exemplary compositions of Vasseur teach a total plasticizer in the amount
claimed. Id.
Appellant does not convince us of reversible error by the Examiner.
"A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a
claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art." In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
275 (CCPA 1980) (where ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness
is made out). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(same). As the Examiner (Final Act. 4--5) finds, Vasseur describes resin A
in amounts ranging from 10 to 20 phr and plasticizer B in a range of 10 to 40
phr. Vasseur ,r,r 64 (the plasticizer comprises "one or more compound(s) not
extracted from petroleum, in a quantity of from 10 to 40 phr"), 88 ("said
composition comprises said plasticizing resin in a quantity of from 10 to 20
phr"). Therefore, when the amount of resin A is combined with the amount
of plasticizer B, Vasseur describes a total amount of plasticizer between 20
to 60 phr which overlaps with the claimed range of 50-100 phr and supports
a prima facie case of obviousness. See Final Act 5; see also Appeal Br. 6
trioleate or said vegetable oil as plasticizer ( characterized by a relatively
low Tg of the order of -90Q C), so as to obtain for the final composition the
Tg precisely desired for gripping on dry or damp ground." Vasseur ,r 77
( emphasis added).
6
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
(acknowledging the overlap with the claimed range). Appellant's argument
that none of the exemplified compositions describe a total plasticizer amount
as claimed is also unconvincing as it seeks to supplant the broader teachings
of Vasseur for the narrower examples. 8 In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647,
384--85 (CCPA 1967) ("One cannot ignore the broader, instructive
disclosure of a reference at the expense of reliance only on the specific
examples"); see also In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) ("all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered"). Thus, on balance, the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner.
Third, Appellant urges that Vasseur does not describe a non-organic
filler in an amount from 90 to 150 phr. Appeal Br. 6. In particular,
Appellant explains that "Vasseur et al. does not disclose any range of
reinforcing silica, but rather only mentions a range of carbon black ...
which is by definition an organic filler, not an inorganic filler." Id. at 6-7.
Appellant further states that no example in Vasseur describes using silica in
the quantity claimed and when used, it is only used in combination with
carbon black. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds
that Vasseur teaches reinforcing fillers in amounts ranging from 60 to 200
phr which overlaps with the present claims. Final Act. 4 ( citing Vasseur ,r
8 Appellant repeatedly asserts that because the examples of Vasseur and
Lopitaux do not utilize the claimed ingredients in amounts recited by the
claims, one skilled in the art would not be led by the art to achieve the
composition of claim 1. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7-8, 12-14. Because such
arguments ( as discussed above) focus on the examples as opposed to the
references as a whole, such arguments are unpersuasive. Courtright, 377
F.2d at 384--85; Lamberti, 545 F.2d at 750.
7
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
90). Vasseur also describes "'white filler[ s ], "' such as silica, as a known
type of reinforcing filler which is "capable of replacing a conventional filler
of tire-grade carbon black in its reinforcement function." Vasseur ,r 94. In
addition, as the Examiner notes (Final Act. 4), Vasseur's claim 22 describes
an embodiment where the "reinforcing filler is a reinforcing white filler in a
quantity equal to or greater than 70 phr." Id.; Vasseur, claim 22.
Furthermore, the inventive examples of Vasseur utilize silica in amounts of
80 phr (Tables 1, 3, and 5) and 88 phr of silica (Table 4). 9 Therefore, the
totality of the teachings of Vasseur supports the Examiner's understanding
that the amounts taught for reinforcing fillers in amounts ranging from 60 to
200 apply to both carbon black and white fillers, like silica.
Fourth, "Appellant[] further maintain[s] that Vasseur et al. does not
suggest using specifically 40 to 100 phr of an E-SBR instead of S-SBR for
enhancing wet grip properties without deteriorating the rolling resistance."
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant urges that none of the examples using E-SBR are
related to wet grip properties and the example that does relate to wet grip
includes S-SBR, not E-SBR, and does not meet the other claimed
parameters. Id.
Appellant does not apprise us of a reversible error by the Examiner.
The Examiner finds that Vasseur describes a rubber composition having 50-
100 phr of a diene elastomer and a trans-linkage content of 72.1 % by mass.
9 We also note that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the
claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough
such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783
(Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, silica in an amount of 88 phr only slightly
differs from bottom of the claimed range of 90 phr.
8
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Final Act. 4. In particular, Vasseur teaches a "majority diene elastomer" that
may include S-SBR or E-SBR. Vasseur ,r 51. Vasseur continues to explain
that in "a further embodiment of the invention, said composition comprises
majority diene elastomer(s) in a quantity of 100 phr." Id. ,r 54; see also id.
at claim 14, ("wherein said composition comprises between 50 phr and 100
phr of a majority diene elastomer"). In addition, Vasseur describes E-SBR
A, a styrene-butadiene copolymer, with "a trans linkage content of72.1 %."
Id. ,r,r 184, 187. That Vasseur fails to relate E-SBR with improved wet grip
properties is not pertinent in light of the fact that Vasseur expressly teaches
using E-SBR, alone or in combination with other diene elastomers, and
having the same amount and trans-linkage content as claimed. KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,419 (2007) ("In determining whether the
subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation
nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the
objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under§ 103."); see also Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of
ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a
prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.").
Lastly, Appellant argues that unexpected results are achieved through
the claimed combination. Final Act. 8. Appellant refers to Tables 1 and 2 of
the Specification which show a side-by side comparison of inventive
compositions C3---C5 with E-SBR and comparative example C2 using S-
SBR. Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, these tests "clearly
demonstrate the particular components and amounts recited in claim 1
provide the improved wet grip while maintaining desirable rolling resistance
9
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
of the tire." Id. Appellant further relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Jean-
Michel Douarre, dated March 31, 2016 ("Douarre Declaration"), which
"demonstrate[s] that when the amount ofE-SBR, silica, resin, or total
plasticizing system is slightly reduced below the explicitly defined ranges
recited in [ c ]laim 1, the tire exhibits a significantly deteriorated wet grip
performance." Id. at 10.
Appellant's arguments fail to identify error in the Examiner's
rejection. The burden rests with the Appellant to establish (1) that the
alleged unexpected results presented as being associated with the claimed
invention are, in fact, unexpected, (2) that the comparisons are to the
disclosure of the closest prior art, and (3) that the supplied evidentiary
showing is commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. See In
re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) ("the burden of showing
unexpected results rests on he who asserts them"); In re Geisler, 116 F .3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellant's evidence is not commensurate in scope with the
breadth of the claims nor is Appellant's comparison made to the closest prior
art. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 19), the inventive examples utilize a
specific amount of E-SBR, second elastomer, inorganic filler, liquid
plasticizer, and resin plasticizer but the claims recite a much broader range
for each these ingredients. Compare Appeal Br. 19--20 (Claims App'x) with
Spec. 19 (Table 1) and with Douarre Declaration 6. By way of example,
each inventive example includes E-SBR in amounts of 50 and 60 phr, yet
claim 1 broadly recites a range of 40-100 phr. Ans. 19. Therefore, the
Examiner explains "it is unclear if the result obtained are indicative of all
amounts encompassed by the present claims or for only those exemplified in
10
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
the examples." Id. Without more, there is little reason to believe that the
data will hold true across the entire range. Therefore, Appellant has not
carried their requisite burden.
Rejection B-Obviousness over Lopitaux (claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, and 14-16)
The Examiner rejects claim 1, inter alia, as obvious over Lopitaux.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Lopitaux teaches a tire tread
composition similar to that claimed. Id. The Examiner finds that "[t]he only
deficiency of reference is that reference discloses the use of between 5 to 50
phr plasticizer, wherein as defined in Paragraph [0021] of Lopitaux et al
'between a and b' represents the field of values ranging from more than a to
less than b." Id. at 9. But, the Examiner reasons that
Id.
the instantly claimed amount of plasticizer and that taught by
the reference are so close to each other that the fact pattern is
similar to ... [ case law] where despite a "slight" difference in
the ranges ... such a difference did not "render the claims
patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of
obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art
ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in
the art would have expected them to have the same properties."
Appellant presents similar arguments to those presented in Rejection
A. See Appeal Br. 11-17. Initially, Appellant contends that Lopitaux does
not teach the total amount of plasticizers in claim 1. Id. at 12. Appellant
explains that because Lopitaux describes a total amount of plasticizer is
between 5-50 phr which is outside the range of the claims, i.e., 50-100 phr.
Id. Appellant further states that the inventive compositions of Lopitaux use
total amounts of plasticizers far below the claimed range. Id.
11
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Appellant's argument that Lopitaux fails to suggest the claimed
composition because the total amount of plasticizer is not within the claimed
range is not persuasive of reversible error. A prima facie case of
obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not
overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have
expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In this case, the Examiner finds that Lopitaux teaches or suggests the
total amount of plasticizer, that is, the sum of the amount of liquid and resin
plasticizers. Final Act. 8; Ans. 27. In particular, Lopitaux describes that the
"plasticizing agent is a solid hydrocarbon-based resin, a liquid plasticizer or
a mixture of the two ... [ where t ]he content of plasticizing agent is
preferably between 5 and 50 phr." Lopitaux ,r,r 71-72. Both Lopitaux and
the instant Specification explain that ranges described as "between" are not
inclusive of the end point. See id. ,r 21; Spec. 3. The Examiner reasons that
in light of the "'slight' difference" between the Lopitaux upper range of
49.99 and the lower end 50.01 phr claimed, the person skilled in the art
would have found the claimed amount obvious. Ans. 29.
Next, Appellant asserts that Lopitaux "does not at all suggest the
specific amount of hydrocarbon resin A and/or plasticizer B liquid at 20QC
recited in claim 1." Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also states that "the only
example of Lopitaux et al., which has [a] 33 phr total plasticizer and does
not specify the respective amounts of plasticizers A and B." Id.
Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error. The Examiner
explains that Lopitaux describes the total plasticizer content of 5-50 phr and
within that, the resin is present in an amount greater than 5 phr, leaving 45 to
12
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
0 phr for the liquid plasticizer which overlaps with Appellant's claimed
range. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Lopitaux ,r,r 72, 74); Ans. 31. We discern no
error in the Examiner's findings and Appellant identifies none.
Appellant further argues that the only examples in Lopitaux that
utilizes silica does so in an amount lower than the claimed level. Appeal Br.
13.
As discussed above (supra 6-7, 7 n. 8), arguments focusing on the
examples to the exclusion of the broader disclosure within a reference are
unpersuasive of error. Courtright, 377 F.2d at 384--85; Lamberti, 545 F.2d
at 750. The Examiner explains that the disclosure in Lopitaux is not limited
to the examples but rather must be assessed as a whole. Ans. 33. In this
regard, the broader teachings of Lopitaux describe a reinforcing filler in an
amount between 20 and 200 phr, preferably between 30 and 150 phr, and
that the filler may be carbon black, an inorganic filler like silica, or
combinations of both. Id. at 32; see, e.g., Lopitaux ,r,r 46, 53. Therefore, on
this record, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
rejection.
Appellant also argues that Lopitaux "fails to suggest using specifically
35 to 65 phr of an E-SBR having a content oftrans-1,4-butadienyl units is
greater than 50%, by weight, based on the total of the butadienyl units."
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant acknowledges the general teachings of E-SBR and
S-SBR in Lopitaux but assert that there are "no specific disclosure[ s] of
individual compositions that contain E-SBR" having trans-1,4-butadienyl
units as claimed. Id.
Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner's rejection. As the
Examiner aptly explains Lopitaux as a whole suggests the claimed E-SBR.
13
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Ans. 35; see also Appeal Br. 14 (acknowledging the general teachings of
Lopitaux support the Examiner's findings). By way of example, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Lopitaux that
[ t ]he SBR elastomer may be an SBR prepared in [an] emulsion
("ESBR") or an SBR prepared in solution ("SSBR") .... [ And
i]n the case of an SBR (ESBR or SSBR) elastomer use is made
in particular of an SBR having ... a content (mol %) of trans-
1,4-bonds of between 15% and 75%.
Lopitaux ,r 25. The absence of a specific example in Lopitaux utilizing an
E-SBR as claimed does not displace the broader teachings suggesting 3 5 to
65 phr of an E-SBR with a trans-1,4,-butadienyl content greater than 50% by
weight. Id.
Lastly, Appellant argues that the Specification, together with the
Douarre Declaration, "unambiguously demonstrate[ s] the unexpected
improvement in breaking on wet ground without a significant deterioration
in rolling resistance is achieved by the specific combination of components
in the specific amounts recited in claim 1." Appeal Br. 14--15. However, as
stated above, the inventive examples identified in Tables 1 and 2 of the
Specification and the Douarre Declaration are not commensurate in scope
with the claims such that the unexpected results are expected over the
breadth of the claims. See supra 9--10.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vasseur.
14
Appeal2017-004915
Application 14/116, 112
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 11, 12, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lopitaux.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 11,
12, and 14--1 7 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
15