Ex Parte Shooshtari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13490638 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/490,638 06/07/2012 Kiarash Alavi Shooshtari 8149 6120
29602 7590 03/01/2018
JOHNS MANVILLE
10100 WEST UTE AVENUE
PO BOX 625005
LITTLETON, CO 80162-5005
EXAMINER
QIAN, YUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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 KIARASH ALAVI SHOOSHTARI
____________

Appeal 2017-003287
Application 13/490,638
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 35, and 36.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 7, 2012; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated November 23, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Br.”) dated May 20, 2016; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated July 8,
2016.
2 Appellant identifies Johns Manville Company as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003287
Application 13/490,638

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to crosslinkable binders for composite fiber
products. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal:
1. A binder composition comprising:
a reducing sugar; and
a crosslinking agent that is a reaction product of a urea
compound and an aldehyde-containing compound, wherein the
crosslinking agent and the reducing sugar have a molar ratio of
1:2 to 1:50.

Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 35, and 36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hampson3 and Wang.4
OPINION
Appellant limits the arguments to claim 1. See Br. 5–10. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 1 as
representative and decide the appeal based on the representative claim alone.
Hampson discloses a binder for fiber products, such as insulation or
wood boards, that includes a carbohydrate, a nitrogen source, and an acid
precursor. Hampson Abstract. The carbohydrate preferably is a reducing
sugar, such as dextrose. Id. at 3:24–26. The nitrogen source may be an
amine reactant. Id. at 4:14. Curing occurs via a Maillard type reaction. Id.

3 GB 2 451 719 A, published February 11, 2009 (“Hampson”).
4 US 2007/0082187 A1, published April 12, 2007 (“Wang”).
Appeal 2017-003287
Application 13/490,638

3
at 5:4–6).5 Hampson’s disclosed binder composition differs from that of
claim 1 in that Hampson does not identify the above-mentioned amine
reactant as a reaction product of a urea compound and an aldehyde-
containing compound. Nor does Hampson teach the claimed molar ratio.
The Examiner finds that Wang teaches a binder composition that
includes a dihydroxyethylene urea (DHEU), particularly, 4,5-
dihydroxyimidazolidin-2-one (Final Act. 3–4), which Appellant identifies in
the Specification as an example of the claimed crosslinking agent that is a
reaction product of a urea compound and an aldehyde-containing compound
(Spec. ¶ 5). Wang teaches that the above-mentioned DHEU crosslinks with
a crosslinking agent containing hydroxyl groups, such as maltodextrin.
Wang ¶¶ 45, 46, 57. Fiber products, including wood boards, fabricated with
Wang’s crosslinked DHEU are stated to exhibit reduced emission of volatile
organic compounds, particularly formaldehyde. Id. ¶¶ 10–11. In light of the
foregoing disclosures, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reason to use Wang’s DHEU to crosslink dextrose in
Hampson’s binder composition. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that Hampson teaches away from using a complex
organic nitrogen source such as Wang’s DHEU because, according to
Appellant, Hampson’s disclosed binder is based on a discovery that complex
organic nitrogen-containing compounds can be replaced with cheaper and
more available inorganic ammonium salts without compromising the
suitability of the binder. Br. 6 (citing Hampson 2:5–15). We disagree. At

5 Appellant acknowledges in the Specification that Maillard binders contain
reaction products of reducing sugar carbohydrates and amine reactants.
Spec. ¶ 4.
Appeal 2017-003287
Application 13/490,638

4
the passage relied upon by Appellant, Hampson’s noted discovery relates to
the acid component of the binder, not the nitrogen source. See Hampson
2:1–10 (identifying a known Maillard-type binder that includes a reducing
sugar, ammonia, and a carboxylic acid, and stating that it was considered
“surprising that an acid precursor derivable from an inorganic salt should
provide a suitable acid precursor in an otherwise apparently similar binder
system”). Although Hampson goes on to teach that a “particular advantage”
can be achieved by using inorganic ammonium salts that can serve both as
the acid precursor and nitrogen source (id. at 2:13–17),6 we do not read that
preferred embodiment as a teaching away from using other non-preferred
nitrogen sources. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“All the
disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including nonpreferred
embodiments, and a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific
working examples”) (internal citations omitted).
Appellant also argues that Wang’s teaching of reduced emission of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and autoclave curing would not have
been reasons to modify Hampson because Hampson’s preferred inorganic
ammonium salt already provides reduced VOCs and shorter cure times by
hot air circulation. Br. 7. Neither of these points, however, refutes the
Examiner’s finding that Wang’s DHEU nitrogen source is taught to yield a
Maillard-type binder that produces useful wood composites. Final Act. 4.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s calculation result that suggests
Wang’s DHEU/maltodextrin molar ratio falls within the range recited in

6 See also Hampson 4:14–16 (“The source of nitrogen may be an amine
reactant; it may be derivable from the same source as the in [sic] acid
precursor, for example, from an inorganic ammonium salt”) (emphasis
added).
Appeal 2017-003287
Application 13/490,638

5
claim 1. Br. 8–9. However, Appellant presents no argument against the
Examiner’s finding that the molar ratio of these ingredients would have been
recognized as a result-effective variable, the optimization of which would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 5.
Consistent with the Examiner’s finding, Wang teaches that DHEU and the
other binder components are provided in “effective amounts” and that the
amount of DHEU included “can vary significantly.” Wang ¶¶ 15, 57.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuasively identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection as applied to claim 1, and each of the remaining claims
on appeal that are not separately argued, is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22,
23, 35, and 36 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