Jian Wang et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 1, 201914388735 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/388,735 09/26/2014 Jian Wang 72886-US-PCT 1097 76104 7590 08/01/2019 The Dow Chemical Company/Brooks Cameron & Huebsch 1201 MARQUETTE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 400 Minneapolis, MN 55403 EXAMINER HOCK, ELLEN SUZANNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2019 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): DOW.DOCKETING@BIPL.NET PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JIAN WANG, NILESH R. SAVARGAONKAR, MEHMET DEMIRORS, and JOHN W. GARNETT IV1 (Applicant: Dow Global Technologies LLC,) ____________ Appeal 2019-000263 Application 14/388,735 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Dow Global Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-000263 Application 14/388,735 2 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 1. A polyethylene blend-composition suitable for blown film comprising the melt blending product of: from 0.5 to 4 percent by weight of a low-density polyethylene having a density in the range of from 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) in the range of from 1 to less than or equal to 5 g/10 minutes, and a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) in the range of from 6 to 8.5; from 96 to 99.5 [9] percent by weight of an ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer composition having a Comonomer Distribution Constant (CDC) in the range of from 75 to 200, a vinyl unsaturation of less than 0.15 vinyls per one thousand carbon atoms present in the backbone of the ethylene-based polymer composition; a zero shear viscosity ratio (ZSVR) in the range from 2 to 20; a density in the range of from 0.903 to 0.950 g/cm3 a melt index (h) in a range of from 0.1 to 5 g/, 10 minutes, a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) in the range of from 1.8 to 3.5; and from greater than 0 to 10 percent by weight of a hydrotalcite based neutralizing agent; optionally one or more nucleating agents; and optionally one or more antioxidants. Appeal 2019-000263 Application 14/388,735 3 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Hitchcock et al. US 6,130,293 iss. Oct. 10, 2000 Karjara et al. US 2011/0003940 A1 pub. Jan. 6, 2011 Oobayashi US 2011/0060075 A1 pub. Mar. 10, 2011 Reighard et al. US 7,229,678 B2 iss. June 12, 2007 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1−4 and 6−8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hitchcock in view of Karjala, and further in view of Oobayashi. 2. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hitchcock in view of Karjala in view of Oobayashi, and further in view of Reighard. ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellants’ position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims for essentially the reasons provided by Appellants in the record, and add the following for emphasis. The dispositive issue before us is whether the applied prior art suggests the claim limitation of a polyethylene blend-composition comprising a melt blending product of a low-density polyethylene having a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) in the range of “from 6 to 8.5”. On the one hand, Appellants argue that Hitchcock discloses that the LDPE has a molecular weight distribution of from “about 9 to about 15, preferably from about Appeal 2019-000263 Application 14/388,735 4 10 to about 14” (col. 2, ll. 40–41), and that Hitchcock does not teach or suggest that a molecular weight distribution having a value less than 9, such that a molecular weight distribution of 8.5 or less is contemplated, especially since Hitchcock states that the LDPE preferably has a molecular weight distribution from about 10 to about 14. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants submit that this evidences that Hitchcock does not teach or suggest a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) in the range of “from 6 to 8.5” as recited in claim 1. Appellants also refer to the examples of Hitchcock which illustrate LDPEs having molecular weight distributions (Mw/Mn) of 11 (Examples 9 and 11; Table II) and 12.2 (Example 13; Table II). Appeal Br. 8. On the other hand, it is the Examiner’s position that the primary reference of Hitchcock suggests this range of values because Hitchcock teaches a molecular weight distribution including about 9 to about 15, and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close enough. Final Act. 2–3. Ans. 4. However, in so doing, the Examiner does not direct us to sufficient evidence in the record (see Answer generally) that the differences in the values between that taught in Hitchcock versus that claimed are not meaningful or that one skilled in the art would know to discard the limits set by Hitchcock, especially in light of Appellants’ position to the contrary (highlighted above). In re Patel, 566 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) (“When differences clearly exist and there is no evidence that they are either not meaningful or one of skill in the art would know to discard the limits set by the prior art, proximity alone is not enough to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”). In view of the above, we thus reverse each rejection (Hitchcock is used as the primary reference for both Rejections 1 and 2). Appeal 2019-000263 Application 14/388,735 5 DECISION Each rejection is reversed. ORDER REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation