Markus Schneider et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

2019006141 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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.
14/235,564 01/28/2014 Markus Schneider 160098 1517
25944 7590 07/23/2020
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
WORRELL, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARKUS SCHNEIDER, SILKE STÜSGEN,
SILKE WITZEL, and BERND WOHLMANN

Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Oral argument was held July 10, 2020.
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Teijin Carbon
Europe GmbH (formerly known as Toho Tenax Europe GmbH). Appeal
Brief dated Mar. 8, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application generally relates to fiber composite materials.
Specification filed Jan. 28, 2014 (“Spec.”) 1. The Specification teaches that
fiber composite materials “often offer the advantage of lower weight and/or
higher strength over metals.” Id. Known fiber composite materials are
stated to have certain disadvantages including being “not suitable for the
production of flat yarn strands with a fixed yarn width, which flat yarn
strands would be amenable to an automated, direct processing into fiber
preforms,” “significantly impaired impregnation behavior,” and insufficient
tackiness. Id. at 5. Accordingly, Applicants assert that “[t]here is therefore
a need for improved pre-impregnated yarns for the production of fiber
preforms.” Id. at 6. Applicant further asserts that it is “the object of the
present invention to provide improved pre-impregnated reinforcing fiber
yarns of this type, in particular for use in the production of fiber preforms.”
Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A pre-impregnated yarn comprising:
a bundle of reinforcing fiber filaments with a bundle interior
and a bundle outer side,
a first resin composition comprising
at least two bisphenol A epichlorohydrin resins H1 and
H2 in a weight ratio H1:H2 of 1.1 to 1.4, and
an aromatic polyhydroxy ether P1, and
a second resin composition on the bundle outer side in the
form of particles or drops adhering to the reinforcing fiber
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

3
filaments preimpregnated with the first resin composition,
wherein:
the reinforcing fiber filaments are impregnated with
the first resin composition infiltrated into the pre-impregnated
yarn and the filaments of the preimpregnated yarn are at least
partially connected via the first resin composition,
H1 has an epoxy value of 1850 to 2400 mmol/kg and
an average molecular weight MN of 800 to 1000 g/mol and is
solid at ambient temperatures,
H2 has an epoxy value of 5000 to 5600 mmol/kg and
an average molecular weight MN of < 700 g/mol and is liquid
at ambient temperatures,
P1 has an acid value of 40 to 55 mg KOH/g and an
average molecular weight MN of 4000 to 5000 g/mol,
the pre-impregnated yarn has 0.1 to 2 wt.% of the first
resin composition in relation to the total weight of the yarn,
the second resin composition is solid at ambient
temperatures, has a melting temperature in the range from 80
to 150°C and is present on a surface of the bundle outer
side in a concentration of 0.5 to 10 wt.% in relation to the total
weight of the preimpregnated yarn, wherein the surface of the
bundle outer side is an outer surface of the preimpregnated
yarn,
at least 50% of the surface of the bundle outer side
is free of the second resin composition, and
the entire interior of the pre-impregnated yarn is
free of the second resin composition.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. A-1 to A-2) (reformatted for clarity; emphasis
added).

Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Nagata US 6,117,551 Sept. 12, 2000
Minegishi US 2007/0027298 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Schneider US 2007/0196636 Al Aug. 23, 2007

DISCUSSION
Rejection of Claims 1–15
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–15 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of
Minegishi and further in view of Nagata. Final Action dated Aug. 31, 2018
(“Final Act.”) 2–6.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Schneider teaches
a yarn that includes reinforcing fiber filaments and a resin that is infiltrated
into the yarn. Id. at 2. The Examiner further finds that Schneider teaches
the use of a resin that is generally similar to the first resin composition of the
claims except that Schneider’s resin composition does not include “an
aromatic polyhydroxy ether P1, which has an acid value of 40 to 55 mg
KOH/g and an average molecular weight MN of 4000 to 5000 g/mol.” Id. at
3.
The Examiner finds that Minegishi teaches a polyhdroxy ether with
the claimed acid value and average molecular weight. Id. The Examiner
determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
combine Minegishi’s polyhydroxy ether with Schneider’s resin “in order to
obtain a photocurable and thermosetting resin composition for use in a
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

5
prepreg2 material as taught by Minegishi.” Id. The Examiner further finds
that Schneider and Minegishi do not explicitly disclose a yarn that includes
that claimed second resin composition. Id.
The Examiner finds that Nagata teaches a carbon fiber prepreg that is
“impregnated with a base thermosetting resin and further contain particles of
a thermoplastic resin which preferably account for 10 wt% or less based on
the weight of the prepreg, and the particles are distributed at a higher
concentration in the surface zone than in the inside.” Id. The Examiner
further finds that “Nagata also teaches applying particles to either one or
both sides of the prepreg.” Id. at 4. The Examiner then determines that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the yarn
of Schneider and Minegishi with Nagata’s thermoplastic resin particles “in
order to obtain a stable carbon fiber prepreg that is good in tackiness and can
form a composite with an excellent compression interlaminar shear strength
at high temperature after moisture absorption while maintaining good impact
resistance.” Id.
With regard to the limitation requiring that “the entire interior of the
pre-impregnated yarn is free of the second resin composition,” the Examiner
finds that Nagata teaches several methods of applying thermoplastic
particles to the carbon fiber pregreg including “sticking a matrix resin film
containing particles on one or both sides of a prepreg to let more particles
exist in the surface layer of the prepreg, or alternatively scattering particles
on or both sides of the prepreg.” Id. Accordingly, the Examiner determines,

2 The Specification defines the term “prepreg” as an “abbreviation for pre-
impregnated fibers.” Spec. 2.
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

6
“Nagata appears to teach methods that would provide the claimed structure,
wherein the entire interior can be free of the second resin composition.” Id.

Argument and Analysis
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error in several respects.
Appeal Br. 6–33.
First, Appellant argues that Minegishi is not analogous art to the
application at issue. Id. at 6–16. References qualify as prior art for an
obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Art is analogous where it is
either (1) from the same field of endeavor as the application or (2)
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regard to the field of endeavor test, Appellant argues that the
application’s field of endeavor is “pre-impregnated yarns for the production
of textile structures like fiber preforms (i.e., not prepregs for electronic
devices).” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that “while
Minegishi may mention prepregs (at paragraph [0108]), nowhere does
Minegishi even mention pre-impregnated yarns, textiles, or preforms.” Id. at
9. Appellant further contends that Minegishi teaches a composition for use
“as an insulating resin composition in a prepreg for electronic devices.” Id.
Appellant asserts that prepregs (pre-impregnated fibers) differ from
preforms in their resin content which results in differences in rigidity. Id. at
10–12.
The Examiner finds that “‘prepregs’ is an abbreviation for pre-
impregnated fibers (see appellant’s [Specification] [0003] and Schneider’s
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

7
[0004]). Thus, the Examiner determines, Minegishi’s disclosure of prepregs
is pertinent to appellant’s claimed ‘pre-impregnated yarns’ and to
Schneider’s impregnated yarns.” Answer 9. The Examiner further finds that
“prepregs and preforms are both pre-impregnated materials used in the
preparation of polymer matrix composites comprising fibers, resins, etc.”
Id. at 7. The Examiner additionally finds that “prepregs can be laid-up to
form preforms, and prepregs and preforms are both used (directly or
indirectly) to form composite products such as fiber reinforced plastics.” Id.
at 9.
Here, the Specification teaches as follows:
Components made from fiber composite materials are
increasingly used, especially in the aircraft and space industrial
sectors, yet also e.g. in machine building, wind power, or the
automotive industry. Fiber composite materials often offer the
advantage of lower weight and/or higher strength over metals.
An essential aspect thereby is the inexpensive production of this
type of resilient and yet lightweight composite material
components at the same time. In view of the resistance, i.e. the
rigidity and strength, the volume percent of the reinforcing
fibers and especially also the direction of the reinforcing fibers
have a decisive effect on composite material components.
A commonly used manufacturing method is currently
based on the so-called prepreg technology.

Spec. 1 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification concerns the manufacture
of fiber composite materials. While there is some dispute regarding the use
of prepregs to form preforms, it is apparent that the claimed yarns and the
prior art prepregs are similar technologies and are both used to make fiber
composite materials. Id. at 7. Further, the subject pre-impregnated yarns are
asserted to differ from prior art prepregs primarily in the ratio of the fibers
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

8
and matrix resin. Schneider ¶ 4. Considering the foregoing as a whole,
Appellant has not shown that modification of the ratio of the fiber to matrix
ratio is sufficient such that the pre-impregnated yarns fall within a separate
field of endeavor.
The second prong of the analogous art test concerns whether the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the
inventor. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d at 442. Appellant argues that
Minegishi’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by
the inventors. Appeal Br. 13–16. Appellant directs us to the Specification’s
statement that there is “a need for improved pre-impregnated yarns for the
production of fiber preforms” and that it is “the object of the present
invention to provide improved pre-impregnated reinforcing fiber yarns of
this type, in particular for use in the production of fiber preforms.” Id. at 14
(citing Spec. 5–6). Appellant concludes that “the problem faced by the
inventors is how to arrive at a flexible yarn material.” Id.
The Examiner points out similarities in the resins of the claim and
Minegishi. The Examiner finds that
Minegishi’s photocurable resin comprises not only an
aromatic polyhydroxy ether P1 (i.e., 100 parts of an actinic
energy ray-curable resin ‘A’), but also the same types of
bisphenol A epichlorohydrin resins, H1 and H2, claimed by
appellant (e.g., 10 to 100 parts of a cyclic ether compound ‘D’
which may include bisphenol A type epoxy resins, such as
EPIKOTE 828, EPIKOTE 1001, etc.).

Answer 8. Thus, the Examiner finds that Minegishi concerns a similar resin
for a similar use. Id. The Examiner concludes that “Minegishi’s disclosure
is reasonably pertinent to appellant’s problem of using a resin composition
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

9
(the first resin composition of claim 1) to form a pre-impregnated yarn (a
prepreg) for use in preforms and/or cured composite products (see
appellant’s Example 5).” Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning to be persuasive. Minegishi’s
teaching to use a polyhydroxy ether with similar bisphenol A resins as
claimed in a similar context (prepregs) suggests that Minegishi is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. Accordingly, we determine
that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that the
teachings of Minegishi are analogous art.
Second, Appellant argues that there is no reason to modify the yarn of
Schneider according to the teachings of Minegishi and Nagata because the
proposed modifications would render the yarn of Schneider unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 16–19.
Appellant argues that “the intended purpose of Schneider is to arrive
at a flexible yarn material that has textile properties (e.g., can bend), which
is used to produce a preform.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
further argues that “[n]either Minegishi nor Nagata mention preforms, but
instead merely mention/discuss prepregs.” Id. Appellant asserts that
prepregs are resistant to bending. Id. (citing Schneider ¶ 4). As a result,
Appellant argues, “modifying Schneider to obtain a prepreg . . . would
necessarily undermine Schneider’s intended purpose of achieving a flexible
yarn material that can be wound up and used to produce a preform.” Id.
Appellant asserts that prepregs are stiff while preimpregnated yarns
have greater flexibility. Id.; see also Spec. 2. The Specification teaches that
this is a result of prepregs having “the two components (fiber and matrix
resin) in the final mixture ratio.” Spec. 2; see also Schneider ¶ 4. Appellant,
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

10
however, does not squarely address the Examiner’s findings that the
hypothetical combination would include “epoxy resins H1 and H2 which
together are contained in the yarn in a total amount of 0.5 to 1.7 wt% relative
to its weight.” Final Act. 2. Nor does Appellant squarely address the
Examiner’s findings that the hypothetical combination would include
“particles of a thermoplastic resin which preferably account for 10 wt% or
less based on the weight of the prepreg.” Id. at 3. That is, Appellant argues
that prepregs differ from preimpreganted yarns in the ratio of resin to fiber,
but does not show that the resin fiber composition of the hypothetical
combination has a different ratio of resin to fiber than the claimed pre-
impregnated yarn.
Third, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination
fails to teach certain claim elements. Appeal Br. 19–29. Initially, Appellant
argues that the references fail to teach a “pre-impregnated yarn.” Id. at 19–
22). Appellant directs us to the Examiner’s finding that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have modified the yarn of Schneider and Minegishi with
thermoplastic resin particles . . . in order to obtain a stable carbon fiber
prepreg.” Id. at 20 (emphasis in original). Appellant reiterates its assertion
that a prepreg differs from a pre-impregnated yarn. Id. at 20–21.
Accordingly, Appellant reasons, the product resulting from the proposed
combination would be a prepreg and not a yarn as required by claim 1.
This is not persuasive. It is undisputed that Schneider teaches a pre-
impregnated yarn. The Examiner proposes to modify the yarn of Schneider
by application of certain resins taught by Nagata and Minegishi. Appellant
has not set forth reasoning explaining how the modification of Schneider’s
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

11
resin would change the product described therein from a yarn to a prepreg.
The Examiner’s use of the term “prepreg” is insufficient to effect a
substantive change. Further, the Examiner made findings that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the resins of
Nagata and Minegishi in the ratios set forth in the claim. Appellant has not
shown error in such findings. The reasonable inference is that the product of
the hypothetical combination would have a flexibility similar to the claimed
product. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in this regard.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s hypothetical
combination would not have embodied a yarn where “at least 50% of the
surface of the bundle outer side is free of the second resin composition” and
“the entire interior of the pre-impregnated yarn is free of the second resin
composition” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 22–27.
In the Final Action, the Examiner determines as follows with regard to
the exterior surface of the yarn bundle:
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected that
applying the thermoplastic resin particles (the second resin
composition) to only one outer side of the yarn bundle would
result in 50% of the surface of the bundle outer side being free
of the second resin composition as claimed.

Final Act. 4. With respect to the interior surface of the bundle being free of
the second resin composition, the Examiner finds the following:
With regard to the entire interior of the pre-impregnated
yarn being free of the second resin composition, the examiner
notes that Nagata teaches several methods of applying the
thermoplastic particles to the carbon fiber pregreg. For instance,
Nagata teaches a so-called hot melt method is used to impregnate
a carbon fiber bundle, but Nagata also teaches alternate methods
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

12
such as sticking a matrix resin film containing particles on one
or both sides of a prepreg to let more particles exist in the surface
layer of the prepreg, or alternatively scattering particles on one
or both sides of the prepreg (see column 10 lines 4-22). Thus,
Nagata appears to teach methods that would provide the
claimed structure, wherein the entire interior can be free of
the second resin composition.

Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the foregoing is speculative in nature and
inadequate to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant directs our attention to Nagata’s Abstract which provides that a
thermoplastic resin is “distributed at a higher concentration in the surface
zone than in the inside.” Id. (citing Nagata, Abstract); see also Nagata col.
2:13–23 (similar disclosure). Appellant contends that “[a]t best, Nagata
merely teaches that the thermoplastic resin particles of the inventive prepreg
of Nagata are distributed at a higher concentration in a surface zone than in
the inside . . . and thus there is not even any expectation of producing the
claimed structure from any of the methods mentioned in Nagata.” Appeal
Br. 24 (emphasis omitted).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that “Nagata teaches that 90% or
more of the particles are localized within 30% thicknesses of the prepreg
from the surfaces of the prepreg” and that “‘90% or more’ includes 100%.”
Answer 11.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant states as follows:
[T]he Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidence/
reasoning to support a prima facie case of obviousness in that
the Examiner makes no supported finding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the asserted statements in
Nagata to somehow convey that a localized region within 30%
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

13
thicknesses of the prepreg from the surfaces of the prepreg
somehow reads and/or operates on the positioning of the
claimed second resin composition, which is positioned
exclusively on a surface of the bundle outer side, where the
surface is an outer surface of the pre-impregnated yarn.

Reply Br. 17–18 (emphases omitted).
As persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work,
examiners are responsible for making findings, informed by their scientific
knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary
skill in the art. Absent legal error or contrary factual evidence, those
findings can establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Berg, 320
F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, the Examiner finds that Nagata
teaches a method of applying the second resin such that the resin particles
are localized on or near the surface. Answer 11. Such finding has not been
shown to be in error. Accordingly, we accept such finding.
Appellant argues that “the claimed second resin composition . . . is
positioned exclusively on a surface of the bundle outer side, where the
surface is an outer surface of the pre-impregnated yarn.” Reply Br. 18
(emphasis omitted). This appears to go beyond the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
a bundle of reinforcing fiber filaments with a bundle interior
and a bundle outer side,
a second resin composition on the bundle outer side in the form
of particles or drops adhering to the reinforcing fiber filaments
the second resin composition . . . is present on a surface of the
bundle outer side . . . wherein the surface of the bundle outer
side is an outer surface of the preimpregnated yarn,
the entire interior of the pre-impregnated yarn is free of the
second resin composition.
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

14
Appeal Br. (Claims App. A-1 to A-2). Thus, while the second resin is
required to be excluded from the interior of the pre-impregnated yarn, it is
not apparent that the claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation,
requires that it be “positioned exclusively on a surface of the bundle outer
side” as argued by the Appellant. That is, Appellant has not shown that the
yarn bundle consists only of interior and exterior. Indeed, Nagata’s teaching
that “[t]he distribution of particles at a higher concentration in the surfaces
than in the inside means that 90% or more of the particles are localized
within 30% thicknesses of the prepreg from the surfaces of the prepreg”
suggests that, at least in that context, particles near the surface are not
considered to be in the interior of the prepreg. Similarly, Nagata draws a
distinction between a “surface zone” and “the inside.” Nagata, Abstract.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in this regard.
Appellant additionally argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have had reason “to specifically select and combine H1, H2 and
an aromatic polyhydroxyether P1 in the manner required by the claims”
from among the broader teachings of Minegishi. Appeal Br. 28–29.
In the Final Action, the Examiner relies on Schneider as teaching
bisphenol A resins H1 and H2. Final Act. 2 (“Schneider teaches that the
resin includes a mixture of at least two bisphenol A epichlorohydrin epoxy
resins H1 and H2”). In the Answer, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason “to modify the resin
composition of Schneider with an actinic energy ray-curable resin ‘A’ (the
claimed polyhydroxy ether P1 compound) because Minegishi teaches that
the resin compositions comprising this compound are photocurable and have
improvements in properties such as adhesiveness and flexibility.” Answer 9.
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

15
The Examiner further finds that “Minegishi’s curable composition also
comprises the same types of bisphenol A epichlorohydrin resins H1 and H2
taught by Schneider and claimed by appellant in claim 1.” Id. Thus, the
Examiner’s primary basis for combination of Minegishi’s resin with
Schneider’s yarn components is to achieve improved properties.
In the Final Action, the Examiner further finds that “Minegishi
teaches a curable actinic energy ray-curable resin (an aromatic polyhydroxy
ether) as represented by Formula 11, where m = H and R3 represents a
structure originated from a bifunctional epoxy compound.” Final Act. 3
(citing Minegishi, Abstract and ¶¶ 43, 65). The substituent groups relied on
by the Examiner are specifically enumerated in Minegishi. Minegishi ¶ 65.
That Minegishi discloses other compounds does not negate the foregoing
teaching. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (“That the [reference] discloses a multitude of effective
combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.”).
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in this regard.
Fourth, Appellant argues that the patentability of the claims is
supported by evidence of unexpected advantages and results achieved by a
yarn embodying the recited features. Appeal Br. 30–33. Specifically,
Appellant argues that “it is surprising that a yarn with a lower resin content
between the filaments and a restricted application of the second resin
composition actually results in an improved adhesiveness and shear tensile
strength (as demonstrated by the examples of specification).” Id. at 30.
Appellant asserts that Examples 1–3 of the Specification describe
yarns that exhibit a greater shear-tensile strength than those of Comparative
Example 1 (similar to Schneider). Id. at 31. Appellant further asserts that
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

16
preforms made from the claimed yarns “are very dimensionally stable, can
be handled problem-free and have a good impregnation capability” relative
to prior art preforms embodied as described in Comparative Example 2. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Appellant has not shown that
the cited evidence is commensurate with the claims. “For example,
appellant’s Examples 1 and 2 don’t disclose incorporation of a second resin
composition with a melting temperature in the range 80 to 150 °C, and in
Example 3 it is unclear if at least 50% of the surface of the bundle outer side
is free of the second resin composition.” Answer 11. These determinations
are not addressed in the Reply Brief.
We additionally observe that the second resin of Examples 1–3 is
taught to comprise “an epoxy resin H3.” Spec. 21. The Specification
teaches as follows regarding resin H3:
To achieve in particular the characteristics of the present
yarn with respect to its tackiness or its adhesive strength, the
second resin composition contains in a preferred embodiment at
least 50 wt.% of a bisphenol A epichlorohydrin resin H3 with
an epoxy value of 480 to 645 mmol/kg and an average
molecular weight MN of 2700 to 4000 g/mol . . . .

Id. at 10 (emphasis added). Claim 1, however, does not require resin H3.
The only claim at issue that requires “a bisphenol A epichlorohydrin resin
H3” is claim 4. Appeal Br. (Claims App. A-2). Thus, with regard to claims
1–3 and 5–15, Appellant has offered evidence for only a single “second resin
composition” but seeks to claim more broadly.
In view of all of the foregoing, we determine that Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s determination that the evidence of record
does not show evidence that the yarns or textile structures of the claims
Appeal 2019-006141
Application 14/235,564

17
provide an unexpected benefit that is commensurate with the scope of the
claims at issue.

Appellant’s brief is required to include an explanation of Appellant’s
arguments and the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes, regulations,
authorities, and parts of the record relied on. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). To the extent Appellant has presented any argument that
fails to comply with such requirement, that argument has not been
considered. To the extent that Appellant has presented any new argument
which was not raised in the Appeal Brief, or is not responsive to an
argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer, that argument has not been
considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Examiner’s Answer,
and above, the Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103(a) Schneider,
Minegishi, Nagata
1–15

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