Ex Parte Yahiaoui et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11513831 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

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.
11/513,831 08/31/2006 Ali Yahiaoui KCX-1204
(64121987US01)
3043
22827 7590 08/30/2012
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALI YAHIAOUI, ANTHONY S. SPENCER, CHARLES E.
BOLIAN II, ANN L. MCCORMACK, and
PATRICK L. PAYNE
____________

Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
HUBERT C. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 27-36, and 38-45.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a method for integrating a hydrogel polymer into a
fibrous web. (Spec.3 2:2-3.) The resultant hydrogel-fibrous web composite is
useful in a variety of products such as garments, packaging material, and moisture
control webs for confined spaces. (Id. at 26-29.) Claims 1, 2, and 45 are
representative of the invention and are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for integrating a hydrogel polymer into a fibrous web,
the method comprising:
applying a hydrogel precursor formulation to a fibrous nonwoven web of
polyolefin fibers, wherein the fibrous nonwoven web is a meltblown web, a
spunbond web, or a laminate thereof, wherein the hydrogel precursor formulation
comprises water, a solubilizer, an initiator, a hydrogel monomer present from
about 20% to about 80% by weight of the hydrogel precursor formulation, and a
crosslinker present from about 0.01 % to about 0.5% by weight of the hydrogel
precursor formulation, and wherein said hydrogel monomer comprises N-vinyl
pyrrolidone, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid or its salt, styrene
sulfonic acid or its salt, potassium sulfopropyl acrylate, dimethyl acrylamide,
dimethyl amino ethyl methacrylate or its quaternary salt derivative, and acrylamido
methyl propane sulfonic acid or its salt, or combinations thereof; and
polymerizing the hydrogel monomer to form a hydrogel polymer having a
three-dimensional crosslinked structure that is integral to the fibrous nonwoven
web by intertwining with the polyolefin fibers, wherein the hydrogel polymer is
capable of absorbing more than about 20% its weight in water while maintaining
the three-dimensional crosslinked structure.

1 Final Office Action mailed Apr. 21, 2010.
2 Appeal Brief filed Aug. 30, 2010 (“Br.”).
3 Specification filed Aug. 31, 2006.
Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831

3

2. A method as in claim 1, wherein said hydrogel monomer
comprises acrylamido methyl propane sulfonic acid or its salt.

45. A method as in claim 2, wherein said crosslinker comprises
methylene-bis-acrylamide.

Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) (Br. 3-4):
1. claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 27-32, 34-36, and 38-45 as unpatentable over Childs
(US 7,316,919 B2, issued Jan. 8, 2008);
2. claim 10 as unpatentable over Childs in view of Wang (US 6,146,747,
issued Nov. 14, 2000);
3. claim 11 as unpatentable over Childs in view of Cartmell (US
5,478,308, issued Dec. 26, 1995); and
4. claim 33 as unpatentable over Childs.
Appellants present separate arguments in support of patentability of claim 1
(Br. 4-11) and claim 45 (id. at 11-12). The remaining claims stand or fall with
claim1, from which they depend. (Id. at 12.)
The Examiner relies on the following disclosure in Childs in support of the
obviousness determination (see generally, Ans.4 3-10):
Childs discloses a method of making a hydrogel composite comprising
applying a hydrogel precursor formulation in water (col. 6, ll. 56-60) to a fibrous
web (col. 17, ll. 42-43). The hydrogel precursor formulation comprises a
polymerizable monomer and a crosslinker. (Col. 8, ll. 10-12.) “Particularly
preferred monomers include dimethyldiallylammonium chloride [(DADMAC)],
acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid.” (Col. 8, ll. 43-44.) “Particularly

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed Sep. 27, 2010.
Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831

4
preferred cross-linking agents include N,N'-methylenebisacrylamide [(BIS)].”
(Col. 9, ll. 22-24.) According to Childs,
[t]he concentration of monomer in the macroporous gel can have an
effect on the resiliency of the macroporous gel prepared. A low
monomer concentration can lead to a macroporous gel that is non-self
supporting. Such non-self supporting gels might be advantageous as
adsorbents, as they could lead to gels having greater adsorption
capacity. In some embodiments, the monomer concentration is 60%
or less, for example about 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 or 5%.
(Col. 9, ll. 29-37.) In Example 28, poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) based
homogeneous gel-filled composites were prepared at different total monomer
concentrations using water as a solvent. (Col. 42, l. 64-col. 43, l. 3.)
The monomer mixture contained 1.0 wt% of BIS crosslinker. ( Col. 43, ll. 2-3.)
The Examiner finds the weight ratio of BIS to DADMAC in Example 28 is
1:99. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner finds that, in this example, if the monomer
concentration is 50, 40, 30, and 20 wt%, the corresponding amount of BIS is 0.5,
0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 wt%. (Id.) The Examiner further finds that, in this example, a
monomer concentration of 20% will contain 0.2 wt% BIS/19.8 wt% DADMAC,
while a monomer concentration of 50% will contain 0.5 wt% BIS/49.5 wt%
DADMAC. (Id.) The Examiner finds Child’s monomer and crosslinker
concentrations overlap Appellants’ claimed ranges. (Ans. 13 (noting the Childs
expressly teaches the use of BIS crosslinker at concentrations which fall within the
range of 0.01-0.5 wt%).)
The Examiner finds Childs teaches DADMAC and acrylamido-2-methyl-1-
propanesulfonic acid are equally suitable monomers for use in making the
disclosed hydrogel composites. (Ans. 6.) Based on this finding, the Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to substitute acrylamido-2-methyl-1-
propanesulfonic acid for the DADMAC in Example 28. (Id. at 6-7.) The
Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831

5
Examiner finds the resultant process would be substantially identical to that
claimed and, therefore, the resultant hydrogel precursor formulation would
inherently be capable of absorbing more than 20% its weight in water. (Id. at 7.)
Appellants do not dispute the calculations made by the Examiner, nor do
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to substitute acrylamido-2-methyl-1-
propanesulfonic acid for the DADMAC in Example 28. (See e.g., Br. 11-12.)
“[T]he existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to
the applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious.” In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The Examiner has fully addressed Appellants’ arguments in support of
patentability (see generally, Br. 4-12 (wherein Appellants argue, inter alia, that
Childs teaches away from the ratio of monomer to crosslinker, the Examiner’s
proposed modification would destroy the intended purpose of Childs, and that the
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight)) and explained why these arguments
are unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. (Ans. 12-
25.) As noted by the Examiner, Appellants have not provided evidence to establish
criticality in the ranges of hydrogel monomer and crosslinker recited in the
appealed claims. (Id. at 9-10.)
In our view, the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner fully support
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s
fact finding and reasoning (see Ans. 3-25) as our own in affirming the rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 27-36, and 38-45.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-003786
Application 11/513,831

6
tc