14364439 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

Ex Parte Rothman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 2019

14364439 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/364,439 06/11/2014 4955 7590 02/11/2019 WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5 755 MAIN STREET MONROE, CT 06468 Paul J. Rothman 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. 712-002.374-l-l/CCS0078US 6365 EXAMINER ORME, PATRICK JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1779 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2019 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): mail@warefressola.com uspatents@warefressola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL J. ROTHMAN Appeal2018-003719 Application 14/364,439 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-12, 16, 18, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Hughes2 in view of Veinot3 and adding Rodopoulos4 to reject claims 21 and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant is the applicant, CiDRA Corporate Services Inc., which, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Hughes, WO 02/066168 Al, published Aug. 29, 2002. 3 Veinot et al., US 2008/0311337 Al, published Dec. 18, 2008. 4 Rodopoulos et al., US 7,150,357 B2, issued Dec. 19, 2006. Appeal2018-003719 Application 14/364,439 The claims are directed to an apparatus including a plurality of cords, strings, or ropes made from polyparaphenylene terephthalamide and a method of making a filter member having the plurality of cords, strings or ropes. See, e.g., claims 1 and 12. The plurality of cords, strings, or ropes have collection surfaces and these collection surfaces include a coating material made of a siloxane derivative that attracts mineral particles to the collection surfaces. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An apparatus comprising: a collection area comprising a plurality of cords, strings or ropes made from polyparaphenylene terephthalamide, the cords, strings or ropes having collection surfaces configured to contact with a mixture comprising water and valuable material, the valuable material comprising a plurality of mineral particles; and the collection surfaces comprising a coating material made of a siloxane derivative to attract the mineral particles to the collection surfaces. Appeal Br. 12 ( claims appendix). OPINION We agree with Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a reason to combine the apparatus and method of Hughes with the nano fiber coated fabric of Veinot. Hughes is in the field of separating metals and minerals from gangue (unwanted material in ore). Hughes 1:3-21, 2:22-28. Hughes' method is a flotation method in which small particles of the metals and minerals are suspended in an aqueous liquid slurry with solid particulate collection particles. Hughes 1 :3---6, 2:22-28, 6:25-7:24. The solid particulate collection particles have hydroxamate functional groups on their surfaces 2 Appeal2018-003719 Application 14/364,439 that collect the minerals or metals. Hughes 2:26-28. The functionalized solid particles are added to an aqueous liquid containing the mineral to be collected and the minerals become attached to the hydroxamate functional groups on the solid particulate. Hugh 3: 12-20. Hughes' solid particulate materials maybe a magnetic particulate or buoyant hollow microspheres. Hughes 1:22-2: 10. To separate the mineral collected on the solid particulate, one applies a magnetic field or floats the buoyant particles. Hughes 7: 11-20. V einot is not directed to a flotation method of separating minerals and metals from an aqueous gangue-containing suspension. V einot is directed to a method of coating substrates, such as polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (KevlarÂ®) fabric, with organosiloxane nanofibers to increase the hydrophobicity of the fabric to, for instance, create a water-proof or water- resistant fabric. Veinot ,r,r 1, 30-31. The Examiner fails to provide a proper rationale, grounded in the teachings of Hughes and Veinot, supporting a reason for combining the teachings in a way that suggests the apparatus and method of the claims. According to the Examiner, combining the apparatus and method disclosed by Hughes with the coated KevlarÂ® fibers disclosed by Veinot would have been obvious "because both references include use of siloxane coatings on polymer surfaces to impart desired hydrophobic properties" and the hydrophobic property "improves separation of mineral particles and makes more reliable separation of mineral particles versus the use of air bubbles by spreading the particles over the active surface." Final 10-11. The Examiner's reasoning falls short because the hydrophobic materials of Hughes are particles of magnetic or buoyant material with hydroxamate functional groups that act as a collection material in an 3 Appeal2018-003719 Application 14/364,439 aqueous suspension of mineral-containing slurry. The Examiner has not explained why the ordinary artisan would tum to a fabric containing hydrophobic polysiloxane nanofibers to replace the collection particles of Hughes or how one would use the fabric of Veinot in Hughes' flotation method. Moreover, the Examiner's attempt to link Hughes' disclosure of reacting the surface of the collection particles with a siloxane with Veinot's disclosure of coating a fabric with siloxane nanofibers does not bridge the gap. Although Hughes discloses treating the surface of the particles with a siloxane, this is an intermediate step done before a further reaction for forming the hydroxamate functional groups. Hughes 5:29--6:9. Contrary to the finding of the Examiner (Final 10-11 ), Hughes is interested in providing hydroxamate functionality and does not use siloxane functionality to impart hydrophobic properties. CONCLUSION The Examiner's use ofRodopoulos to reject dependent claims 21 and 22 does not cure the deficiency. Thus, we do not sustain either of the rejections. DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 4