Ponsolle, Dominique et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

13307383 - (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.
13/307,383 11/30/2011 Dominique Ponsolle 09024S-US 9970
8015 7590 09/28/2020
CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC.
1937 WEST MAIN STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06902
EXAMINER
CHOI, PETER Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
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):
Cheryle.Telesco@solvay.com
StamfordPatent@solvay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DOMINIQUE PONSOLLE,
ROBERT BLACKBURN, BILLY HARMON,
RICHARD PRICE, and MARC DOYLE
____________________

Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4–6, and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In our Decision below we refer to the Specification filed November 30,
2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed December 12, 2017 (Final
Act.), the Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2018 (Appeal Br.), and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed August 15, 2018 (Ans.).
2 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 Cytec
Technology Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
In a prior appeal, we reversed the Examiner’s decision to reject the
claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Decision on Appeal entered
November 30, 2016. In this appeal, however, the Examiner relies on an
additional prior art reference and new reasoning in support of the
obviousness rejections, as discussed below.
The claims are directed to melt-blown and calendared resin-soluble
veils useful in the manufacture of composite articles. Spec. ¶¶ 7–12.
According to the Specification, the “non-woven engineered veils according
to the embodiments of the invention have improved characteristics
including, . . . increased uniformity and decreased thickness” as well as
“functioning as a toughing agent in the composites.” Id. ¶ 27. “These
characteristics translate into improvements in the processing of a composite
article including, . . . a substantial or complete elimination in premature
dissolution of the veil during cure.” Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-woven engineered veil manufactured by a melt-
blown process followed by a calendering process, the veil
comprising a plurality of fibers having a mean diameter of
between 10 μm and 16 μm, wherein less than 20% of the fibers
have a diameter of less than 8 μm,
wherein the veil has a fabric areal weight of between 5
grams per square meter and 80 grams per square meter, a fabric
areal weight variation of less than 10% across the width of the
veil, and a thickness of between 20 μm and 90 μm, which is
achieved by a calendering process, and
wherein the plurality of fibers are formed from a polymer
having a native solid phase and adapted to undergo at least partial
phase transition to a fluid phase on contact with a component of
a curable composition in which the polymer is soluble at a
temperature which is less than the temperature for substantial
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

3
onset of curing of the curable composition and which
temperature is less than the inherent melting temperature of the
non-woven engineered veil.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 10.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 4–6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LoFaro3 in view of
Haque4 and Burrows.5 Final Act. 2.

B. Claims 1, 4–6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LoFaro in view of
Burrows and Raghavendran.6 Id. at 5.
OPINION
Rejection A — Obviousness (claims 1, 4–6, and 8)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–6, and 8 as obvious over LoFaro in
view of Haque and Burrows. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that LoFaro
teaches
a resin-soluble thermoplastic veil toughening element for a
curable composition, wherein the polymer element is a non-
woven veil in solid phase adapted to undergo at least partial
phase transition to fluid phase on contact with a component of
the curable resin matrix composition in which it is soluble at a
temperature which is less than the temperature for substantial

3 LoFaro et al., US 2006/0252334 A1, published November 9, 2006
(“LoFaro”).
4 Enamul Haque, US 7,252,729 B2, issued August 7, 2007 (“Haque”).
5 Robert D. Burrows, US 2005/0064166 A1, published March 24, 2005
(“Burrows”).
6 Raghavendran et al., US 2006/0240242 A1, published October 26, 2006
(“Raghavendran”).
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

4
onset of curing of the curable composition and which
temperature is less than the polymer elements melt temperature
(LoFaro, Abstract).
Id. The Examiner finds that LoFaro teaches a veil that has an areal weight
from about 2 to 150 grams per square meter and where the fibers have a
preferred diameter of 1.0 to about 50 microns. Id. While LoFaro does teach
the diameter of its fibers, the Examiner acknowledges that LoFaro does not
“specifically disclose the claimed mean diameter.” Id. at 3 (emphasis
added). But, the Examiner finds that Burrows teaches a similar fibrous veil
that includes fibers having an average diameter between 11 to 14
micrometers. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner further finds that “Haque teaches a
polymer mat for use in sheet molding compounds, formed of reinforcing
fibers and bonding materials” where “the reinforcing fibers have diameters
of from 8–35 microns, and more preferably diameters of from 12–23
microns” and stresses that Haque “does not recite that the aforementioned
fiber diameters are averages.” Id. at 3. The Examiner explains that Haque
discloses the “less than 20% of the fibers have a diameter of less than 8 μm,”
as claimed, because the claim language necessarily includes 0% of the fibers
having a diameter of less than 8 microns. Id. According to the Examiner,
because Haque teaches an actual diameter of between 8 to 23 microns (and
preferably 12 to 23 microns) as opposed to an average diameter, Haque
teaches 0% of the fibers have a diameter less than 8 microns. Id. The
Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason
to
adjust[], vary[], and optimiz[e] the fiber diameter such that all of
the fibers comprise a fiber diameter [of LoFaro], such as only
within the claimed range, as taught by Burrows and Haque,
motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven veil
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

5
having a fiber diameter known in the art as being predictability
suitable for resin impregnated nonwoven veils, based on the
desired physical properties of the veil and resulting in improved
and uniform properties, suitable for the intended application.
Id. at 4–5. The Examiner also finds that “Haque teaches thermal bonding
the sheet using calendaring.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that “Haque does not disclose a non-woven veil
comprising fibers having similar diameters of 10–16 µm ‘wherein less than
20% of fibers have a diameter of less than 8 µm’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 4.
Rather, Appellant contends that “Haque discloses a molding mat composed
of reinforcing fibers with a much wider range of fiber diameters, 8–35,
preferably 12–23 microns” and where the reinforcing fibers have varying
lengths and diameters from each other within the mat. Id. As a result,
Appellant alleges that the “disclosure by Haque is contrary to the concept of
having a substantial amount of veil fibers with similar diameters.” Id. And,
while “Haque does mention uniform or substantially uniform distribution of
fiber bundles and bonding fibers . . . such uniform distribution of fibers does
not mean substantially uniform fiber diameters.” Id. at 6. Appellant also
asserts that the Examiner’s finding that Haque describes a mat having 0% of
the fibers having a diameter of 8 microns or less is unfounded because
“Haque does not expressly state that the fiber diameters for all fibers in the
molding are ‘necessarily 8 microns or above’” or “that all reinforcing fibers
must have a fiber diameter of 8 microns of higher.” Id. at 5. Finally,
Appellant contends that “the reinforcing fibers disclosed by Haque are not
relevant to LoFaro’s resin-soluble veil of the claimed resin-soluble veil,”
because its preferred reinforcing fibers are resin insoluble glass fibers and
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

6
“the intended purpose of Haque’s molding mat is quite different from the
purpose of LoFaro’s resin-soluble veil.” Id. at 6.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible error by the
Examiner. The claims do not require the veil fibers to have a substantially
uniform diameter as Appellant alleges (Appeal Br. 6). That the mat fibers of
Haque include “a much wider range of fiber diameters” and include varying
lengths and diameters, is based on a misunderstanding of Haque’s teachings
and the scope of the instant claims. See id. at 4. Rather, the claims require
only that a plurality of fibers comprising the veil have a mean diameter
between 10µm to 16µm—not a majority or substantially all of the veil
fibers—and less than 20 % of the plurality of fibers have a diameter less
than 8µm. Here, the Examiner finds that Haque describes the reinforcing
fibers forming its polymer mat as having diameters between 8–35 microns
and more preferably from 12–23 microns. See Final 3–4; Ans. 10–11.
Because the recited diameter ranges are not described as mean or average
diameters for all fibers but rather only to a plurality of fibers, the Examiner
finds that 0% of the fibers taught in Haque have a diameter of 8 microns,
thus meeting the claim language requiring “less than 20% of the fibers have
a diameter of less than 8 μm.” Final 4; Ans. 11. We find no reversible error
in the Examiner’s reasoning.
We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Haque
does not state that all the fibers have a diameter of 8µm or above because
other fibers, i.e., bonding materials, may be present. Appeal Br. 5. The
Examiner does not rely on Haque to describe the total composite
characteristics of non-woven engineered veil. See generally Final 2–6.
Rather, the Examiner relies on Haque to suggest diameters for reinforcing
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

7
fibers that are useful in preparing polymer fiber mats. Id. at 3; Ans. 14–15.
Further, Haque explains that “[t]he reinforcing fibers may be present in the
molding mat in an amount from about 80–98% by weight of the total fibers,
and are preferably present in the molding mat in an amount of from 85%–
95% by weight.” Haque, 5:4–7. Therefore, the remaining fibers, i.e.,
bonding fibers, are present in an amount ranging from 2–20% by weight.
Even if nearly all the bonding fibers of Haque had diameter less than 8µm—
Haque is silent in this regard—the claim language requiring “less than 20%
of the fibers have a diameter of less than 8 µm,” is met. Additionally, even
if we were to assume that Haque does not teach a mat with 0% of the fibers
having a diameter of 8 microns or less, Haque’s disclosure that “reinforcing
fibers may have diameters of from 8–35 µm, and preferably have diameters
of from 12–23 µm,” suggests, at a minimum, that fibers having diameters
less than 8 µm are undesirable.
Lastly, that Haque prefers glass fibers is of little consequence. Haque
describes a broad range of suitable organic, inorganic, and natural fibers,
including “nylon fibers, rayon fibers, and polymer based thermoplastic
materials such as, but not limited to, polyester fibers, polyethylene fibers,
polypropylene fibers, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers,
polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) fibers, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fibers, and
ethylene vinyl acetate/vinyl chloride (EVA/VC) fibers, and mixtures
thereof.” Haque, 4:45–55; see LoFaro ¶¶ 76, 78 (describing polyamides,
i.e., nylon, as a suitable resin-soluble polymer). Further, Appellant’s
argument that the reinforcing fibers of Haque are not relevant to LoFaro
(Appeal Br. 6), is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Haque to
describe fiber diameter suitable for molding mats and not the resin soluble
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

8
polymer. Final 4. The Examiner reasons that employing the diameter
ranges of Haque results in a “uniform distribution of reinforcement fibers
providing improved strength, stiffness, impact resistance, and surface
qualities, in addition to uniform weight consistency and uniform properties.”
Final 4 (citing Haque, 3:25–33).
Accordingly, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
4–6, and 8 as obvious over LoFaro in view of Haque and Burrows.
Rejection B — Obviousness (claims 1, 4–6, and 8)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–6, and 8 as obvious in view of
LoFaro, Burrows, Haque, and Raghavendran. Final Act. 5. In addition to
the findings above for Rejection A, the Examiner further finds that
Raghavendran teaches a fiber reinforced thermoplastic sheet that forms a
skin where “the skins have a thickness of about 25 micrometers to about 2.5
mm.” Id. at 6. The Examiner explains that because LoFaro is silent as to the
thickness of the veil, a person of skill in the art would have looked to
thicknesses used in the prior art. The Examiner reasons that the skilled
artisan would have adjusted and varied the thickness of the veil “motivated
by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven veil having a thickness
known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar fabrics having
similar properties, based on the desired application.” Id. at 7.
Appellant asserts that “Raghavendran does not cure the deficiencies of
LoFaro, Burrows, and Haque” and “Raghavendran fails to disclose or teach
the claimed limitation of ‘fibers having a mean diameter of between 10 µm
and 16 µm, wherein less than 20% of the fibers have a diameter of less than
8 µm.’” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner relies on
Appeal 2019-000567
Application 13/307,383

9
Raghavendran to address the thickness of the nonwoven fabric, not the fiber
diameter limitations. Id.
For the same reasons discussed above in addressing Rejection A, we
are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in Rejection B.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 8 as
obvious over LoFaro and in view of Burrows, Haque, and Raghavendran.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, and 8 LoFaro, Burrows,
Haque
1, 4–6, and 8
1, 4–6, and 8 LoFaro, Burrows,
Haque,
Raghavendran
1, 4–6, and 8
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–6, and 8

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and
8 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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