Jian Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

14388735 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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