Jean-Francois Chartrel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

14579009 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2020)

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.
14/579,009 12/22/2014 Jean-Francois CHARTREL BANDPAY-0004 4343
23599 7590 09/28/2020
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
EXAMINER
TUCKER, PHILIP C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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):
docketing@mwzb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEAN-FRANÇOIS CHARTREL,
CHRISTOPHE ROBERT, and MYRIAM GRISOT-SAULE
____________

Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21 of Application 14/579,009. Final
Act. (April 9, 2018). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Bostik, S.A. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
2
I. BACKGROUND
Flexible packaging often consists of laminates of different materials
which are glued together. Spec. 1. Polyurethanes are frequently used as
adhesives in these materials. Id.
The process of manufacturing the laminates generally includes a step
in which a layer of the polyurethane adhesive is deposited over the entire
surface of a first film of material. Id. This step is followed by a step of glue
laminating a second film of material to the first film. Id. at 1–2.
The ’009 Application describes a gluing process using a gluing nozzle
with an extrusion die for continuous extrusion of an adhesive compound
onto a moving film substrate. Id. at 1. For the sake of convenience, we
reproduce Figure 2 of the ’009 Application below.

Figure 2 shows an enlarged view of a prior art
extrusion die in a continuous gluing system.
Spec. 5.
In the gluing process, film substrate 90 moves at high speed in the
direction of arrows 92. Id. at 2. Adhesive 60 passes through extrusion die 54,
moving in the direction of arrow 64. Id. Extrusion die 54 does not contact
film 90. Rather, extruded adhesive 62 is subjected to a draw ratio caused by
the difference in the adhesive’s extrusion speed and the speed of film 90. Id.
This process subjects adhesive composition 62 to high shearing. Id.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
3
Adhesive composition 60 may also be subjected to high shearing
during extrusion within the gluing nozzle. Id. at 2. For convenience, we
reproduce Figures 3 and 5 of the ’009 Application below.

Figure 3 shows a transverse cross-sectional view
of a prior art gluing nozzle. Spec. 5. Figure 5
shows a graph representing the shear rate during
the flow of the adhesive composition in the gluing
nozzle shown in Figure 3. Id.
Figure 3 shows a transverse cross-sectional view of gluing nozzle 52.
Id. at 2. Thus, Fig. 3 shows a plane which is normal to the width of the
gluing nozzle 52. Id. Adhesive composition 60 is supplied so as to flow in
the direction of arrow 64. Id. Adhesive composition 60 flows from a supply
opening of the gluing nozzle that is considerably narrower than the width of
the extrusion die 54. Id.; see also Fig. 4 (not reproduced). As the adhesive
composition 60 leaves the supply opening, it enters distribution zone 86, in
which it spreads across the entire width of the extrusion die 54. Id. Restrictor
bar 88 smooths out the flow velocity front of the adhesive composition, but
induces a strong shear in adhesive composition 60. Id. Adhesive
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
4
composition 60 then flows through flow channel 58 and is applied to film
90. Id.
Figure 5 is a graph showing the shear rate during flow of adhesive
composition 60 through gluing nozzle 52. Id. at 2–3. Extrusion die 54
includes channel 58 whose cross-section is reduced toward the extrusion
end. Channel 58, therefore, induces additional shearing of the adhesive
compound as shown in Figure 5. Id. at 3.
Importantly, many polyurethane adhesives have a shear-thinning
nature. Id. at 3. Such materials lose cohesiveness when subjected to shear
gradient. Id. The Specification explains that when the cohesion of the
adhesive composition falls, it
may not be enough to maintain the homogeneity of the flow of
the extruded adhesive composition 62 between the gluing
nozzle 52 and the substrate film to be glued 90. The flow of the
adhesive composition may then present certain instabilities of a
nature so as to degrade the appearance of the gluing or even
cause tears, which are then found on the glued substrate 96.
These instabilities and the tears in the coating of [the]
adhesive composition on the glued substrate 96 increases [sic]
with the decrease in the thickness of the layer of glued adhesive
composition, and with the increase in speed of the gluing
process. In other words, these instabilities and these tears or
rips limit the speed of the gluing process and the fineness of the
gluing. In particular[,] the fineness of the gluing may be limited
to 5 g/m², and the speed of the gluing may be limited [to]
200 m/min.
Id.
The ’009 Application’s Specification describes an extrusion die for
use in a gluing nozzle that is said to address these problems by increasing
the cohesion of the adhesive composition to be glued. Id. The improved
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
5
extrusion die is depicted in Figure 8 of the ’009 Application. For the sake of
convenience, we reproduce Figure 8 below.

Figure 8 is a cross-sectional view of a gluing
nozzle comprising an embodiment of
the claimed invention. Spec. 6.
As shown in Figure 8, gluing nozzle 40 comprises extrusion die 20.
Id. at 6. Extrusion die 20 comprises upper and lower lips 24 and 22. Id.
Upper and lower lips 24 and 22 define flow channel 28. Id. Flow channel 28
extends from supply opening 30 to extrusion outlet 34. Id. at 7. Between
supply opening 30 and extrusion outlet 34, flow channel 28 comprises
concave volume 32. Id. The inclusion of concave volume 32 in flow channel
28 insures that the adhesive composition has a sufficient residence time in
flow channel 28 that the adhesive composition can regain cohesiveness2
prior to exiting flow channel 28 through extrusion outlet 34. Id. Thus the
adhesive composition retains a good degree of cohesiveness when applied to
substrate film 90. Id.

2 The Specification refers to the process of regaining cohesiveness as
“relaxation.” Spec. 7.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
6
Claim 1 is representative of the ’009 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A continuous gluing process for continuous gluing of a
film of substrate by making use of a gluing nozzle comprising
an extrusion die for extrusion of an adhesive composition over
a predetermined width, the extrusion die comprising a lower lip
and an upper lip, the upper and lower lips extending parallel to
one another so as to form a transverse channel for the
longitudinal flow of the adhesive composition, the transverse
channel extending longitudinally between:
- a supply opening for supplying the adhesive
composition; and
- an extrusion outlet for extrusion of the adhesive
composition;
the channel comprising a concave relaxation
volume of the adhesive composition between the supply
opening and the extrusion outlet; and
the process comprising:
- supplying an adhesive composition to the gluing
nozzle with a flow rate, the adhesive composition having
a viscous behaviour with a relaxation time period;
- adapting the relaxation volume of the die of the
gluing nozzle to the relaxation time period and the flow
rate of the supply of the adhesive composition, so that the
relaxation volume of the die of the gluing nozzle is
greater than the product of the relaxation time period and
the flow rate of the supply of the adhesive composition;
- extruding the adhesive composition by making use
of the gluing nozzle.
Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
7
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Janssen,3 Kasamatsu,4 and
Ouriev.5 Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 3, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
and Karl.6 Final Act. 6.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
accommodation of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, and Sone.7 Final
Act. 7.
4. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, and
GB ’782.8 Final Act. 8.
5. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
and Dukert.9 Final Act. 9.

3 US 6,843,874 B1, issued January 18, 2005.
4 US 4,708,629, issued November 24, 1987.
5 US 2006/0210666 A1, published September 21, 2006.
6 DE 3503721 A1, published August 7, 1986.
7 US 2006/0164740 A1, published July 27, 2006.
8 GB 732,782, published June 29, 1955.
9 US 3,680,997, issued August 1, 1972.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
8
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combination of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, and Gartmann.10 Final
Act. 11.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl, and Sone.
Final Act. 11–12.
8. Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the accommodation of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl,
Sone, and GB ’782. Final Act. 12.
9. Claims 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the common of Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl, and GB
’782. Final Act. 14.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 8 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, and
Ouriev
For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Ouriev is non-
analogous art and, therefore, is not available for use in an obviousness
rejection. Thus, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 8.
Appellant argues that “Ouriev is not analogous prior art to Janssen or
Kasamatsu and is not combinable therewith.” Appeal Br. 11.
For a reference to be used as a basis for an obviousness rejection of
Appellant’s claims, the reference must either be (1) in the field of the
inventor’s endeavor or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor was concerned. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447

10 US 5,443,638, issued August 22, 1995.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
9
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly.
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Appellant argues that Ouriev is not analogous art because it does not
relate to a gluing process or adhesives. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant concedes
that Janssen and Kasamatsu disclose methods and apparatus for coating a
substrate with an adhesive. Id. at 5. According to Appellant, “Ouriev
discloses an extrusion die for viscoelastic material, i.e., pasta doughs or
polymers, particularly pasta.” Id. at 6.
In response to this argument, the Examiner finds that
Ouriev is directed to the control of viscoelastic effects during
extrusion of polymers. Appellant is concerned with the control
of viscoelastic effects during extrusion of adhesives.
Therefore[,] Ouriev is in Appellant’s field of endeavor and is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
Appellant was concerned.
Answer 6.
We disagree with the Examiner that Ouriev is in Appellant’s field of
endeavor.
We determine the inventor’s field of endeavor “by reference to
explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application,
including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed
invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re
Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (relying on specification to
determine inventor’s field of endeavor).
In this case, the Specification is concerned with and discusses
apparatus and processes for applying thin adhesive films to flexible film
substrates for use in creating laminated films on an industrial scale. See
Spec. 1–2. This is the inventor’s field of endeavor. Ouriev, on the other
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
10
hand, generally discusses strand extrusion of viscoelastic material and
especially focuses on extruding pasta. Ouriev ¶¶ 1–3. Ouriev, therefore, is
not in the inventor’s field of endeavor.
Thus, we must consider whether the Examiner erred by finding that
Ouriev is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was concerned. “A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
According to the Specification, “[t]here is therefore a need to provide
for improvements in terms of speed of gluing or fineness of the gluing”
during the manufacture of the multi-film laminates. Spec. 3. The
Specification describes problems encountered by those trying to increase the
rate at which film is run through a continuous laminator or to reduce the
thickness of the applied adhesive layer beyond a certain point. Id. at 1–3.
According to the Specification, these problems are caused by the adhesive’s
loss of cohesion due to shearing in the extrusion process. Id. at 2–3. The
Specification then states that “the invention aims to increase the cohesion of
the adhesive composition to be glued.” Id. at 3.
Ouriev, on the other hand, is concerned with reducing the effect of the
elastic properties of viscoelastic material during extrusion. Ouriev, ¶ 3.
Ouriev states that
[d]ue to the elastic properties of the viscoelastic material,
mechanical material stresses also arise in such a viscoelastic
material in the forming and tearing process, which continue in
the formed material. After the process of forming the material is
complete, this can lead to additional, apparently spontaneous
deformations. In this conjunction, reference is often made to
“dimensional memory”, because the mechanical material
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
11
stresses of the material exiting the forming device give the
impression that [the material] “remembers” a previous shape,
and wants to return to it. While extruding strands of pastas or
polymers [through a] die arrangement, this can lead to a
crimping of the strands exiting the individual die canals.
Id.
Ouriev, therefore, would not reasonably commend itself to the
attention of an inventor seeking to increase the cohesion, i.e. elasticity, of an
adhesive after extrusion from a slot die.
Because Ouriev is not within the inventor’s field of endeavor nor
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem facing the inventor, it is not
analogous art and may not be used in an obviousness rejection of claim 1.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and also reverse
the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 8.
B. Rejection of claims 3, 19, and 21 over Janssen, Kasamatsu,
Ouriev, and Karl
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 3, 19, and 21.
C. Rejection of claim 4 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, and
Sone
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 4.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
12
D. Rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
GB ’782
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
E. Rejection of claims 7 and 20 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
and Dukert
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 20.
F. Rejection of claim 9 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, and
Gartmann
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 9.
G. Rejection of claim 10 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl,
and Sone
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 10.
H. Rejection of claims 11–13 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
Karl, Sone, and GB ’782
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 11–13.
Appeal 2019-002378
Application 14/579,009
13
I. Rejection of claims 14–18 over Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev,
Karl, and GB ’782
As discussed above, we have determined that Ouriev is not analogous
art and is not available for use in an obviousness rejection of the claims on
appeal. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 14–18.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev 1, 2, 8
3, 19, 21 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl 3, 19, 21
4 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Sone 4
5, 6 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, GB ’782 5, 6
7, 20 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Dukert 7, 20
9 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Gartmann 9
10 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl, Sone 10
11–13 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl, Sone, GB ’782 11–13
14–18 103 Janssen, Kasamatsu, Ouriev, Karl, GB ’782 14–18
Overall Outcome 1–21
REVERSED