Scott Alfred. Rogers et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14053756 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
14/053,756 10/15/2013 Scott Alfred Rogers 09038-US-DIV 3237
8015 7590 08/02/2019
CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC.
1937 WEST MAIN STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06902
EXAMINER
GATES, BRADFORD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
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 SCOTT ALFRED ROGERS, MARK ROMAN, and
ABDEL QADER ABUSAFIEH
____________________

Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, LILAN REN, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision to reject claims 31–43. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 15, 2013
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed April 3, 2017 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed August 30, 2017 as corrected September 28, 2017 (“App.
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 9, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief filed March 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify, Cytec Technology Corp., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

2
The subject matter on appeal relates to the manufacture of composite
articles, and more particularly, methods for target deposition of particles on
substrates. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, “prepregs” are fibrous
reinforcement (sheet, tape, tow, fabric, or mat) pre-impregnated with resin
and generally pre-impregnated with a pre-catalyzed resin under heat and
pressure or with solvent. Id. ¶ 3. The Specification explains that the
addition of particles to the prepreg toughens the prepreg, and that
“toughness” is a mechanical property that measures the resistance of a
material to the propagation of a crack. Id. ¶ 4. The Specification discloses a
layer of particles coated on a surface of a substrate, which is said to be
advantageous over conventional substrates having toughening particles
mixed therein because the viscosity of the resin comprising the film is not
affected by the addition of toughening particles during the mixing process
used to create the film, greatly enhancing processing of the film. Id. ¶ 54.
Claim 31 is illustrative (disputed matter italicized):
31. A method of manufacturing a composite structure,
comprising:
(a) forming a resin formulation comprising one or more
un-catalyzed polymers, wherein the resin formulation does
not comprise any reinforcement fibers;
(b) applying the resin formulation to a release film to form
a tack-enhancement resin film with an outer surface;
(c) depositing a layer of particles onto the outer surface of
the tack-enhancement resin film such that the particles
adhere to the outer surface and are not fusible during
depositing, thereby forming a particle-coated resin film;
(d) laminating the particle-coated resin film to one side of
a prepreg substrate so that the layer of particles is in
contact with a surface of the prepreg substrate, said
prepreg substrate comprising reinforcement fibers
impregnated with a resin; and
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

3
(e) removing the release film to yield a composite
structure.

App. Br. (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the rejection of claims
31–43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Maranci3 and
Nagase.4 Final Act. 3–7; Ans. 3; and App. Br. 3.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that claims 31–43 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Maranci, and Nagase for the reasons stated on pages 3–
7 of the Final Office Action.
Appellants argue claims 31–38 and 40–43 as a group. App. Br. 4–9.
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), claims 32–38 and 40–43 will
stand or fall together with independent claim 31.
Claim 31
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31
because Maranci does not teach a layer of particles on the surface of a resin
film, but, rather, teaches either powder coating without resin to a prepreg or
transferring a coating derived from a mixture of thermoplastic particles and
resin to a prepreg. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that “[a] layer of mixed
materials (resin mixed with particles) is clearly not equivalent to a particle-
coated resin layer where the particles are on the outer surface of the resin
layer.” Id. (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, Nagase’s method
for producing a sheet molding material with chopped fibers embedded in a

3 Maranci et al., US 5,057,353; issued Oct. 15, 1991 (hereinafter
“Maranci”).
4 Nagase et al., US 5,972,272; issued Oct 26, 1999 (hereinafter “Nagase”).
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

4
resin is not relevant to Maranci’s method of producing a fiber-reinforced
resin matrix prepreg coated with a resin layer containing thermoplastic
powder incorporated therein. Id. at 6. Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s reason for combining Maranci and Nagase is insufficient
because it is based on the references being directed towards the general
subject matter of reinforced polymer composites. Id. at 7. Appellants
further assert that the combination of Maranci and Nagase “does not teach to
transfer a particle-coated resin layer to a prepreg where the particles are on
the outer surface of the resin layer as recited in claim 31.” Id. (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner responds that Maranci discloses that particles are at the
surface of the prepreg substrate in the composite layer and, therefore, are
present at the surface of the thermosetting resin and thermoplastic polymer
particle mixture layer laminated onto the prepreg substrate. Ans. 9 (citing
Maranci, Abstract, Fig. 1). Regarding the combination of Maranci and
Nagase, the Examiner responds that both references disclose methods for
forming reinforced polymer composites and not just composite structures.
Id. The Examiner also responds that the benefit of low viscosity allowing
easy application to the release paper and long storage time is taught by
Nagase and not disputed. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert that the Examiner is “mixing up”
two options disclosed by Maranci for applying particles onto a prepreg.
Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Maranci discloses either: (1)
transferring a powder coating without resin to a prepreg (Maranci Abstract,
2:4–13); or (2) transferring a coating derived from a mixture of
thermoplastic particles and resin to a prepreg without reason to expect a
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

5
layer of mixed materials (resin and particles) would have particles present on
the outer surface of such layer. Id. Appellants maintain that Maranci does
not disclose steps (c) and (d) of claim 31 and that Nagase’s teaching to first
deposit the resin onto release paper and then deposit thermoplastic particles
on the resin does not cure the deficiency of Maranci. Id. at 2–3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The
Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 9) that both Maranci and Nagase are directed
toward reinforced polymer composites is not disputed. Appellants also do
not dispute the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 4) that Nagase discloses the
benefit of applying resin to a release paper first and then depositing
thermoplastic particles onto the resin layer is that it allows the resin to have
a low viscosity for easy application to the release paper and long storage
time. The Examiner’s reason for combining Nagase’s teaching with
Maranci’s reinforced polymer composite, therefore, is both undisputed and
supported by the record. See Nagase 19:15–37.
Rather, Appellants urge that Maranci’s resin mixed with particles
would not be expected to have particles present on the outer surface of such
layer. Reply Br. 2. The difficulty with Appellants’ argument is that the
rejection of claim 31 is over the combination of Maranci and Nagase. It is
Nagase that provides the reason for layering the particles on the surface of
the resin in a reinforced polymer composite. Moreover, even if the
combination of Maranci and Nagase did require resin mixed with particles,
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 8) that claim
31 does not prohibit the presence of particles within the recited resin film.
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

6
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 as well
as claims 32–38 and 40–43 as obvious over Maranci in view of Nagase.
Claim 39
Claim 39 depends from claim 31 and further requires that the
temperature of the film during deposition of a layer of particles is controlled
to within a predetermined temperature range.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 31 and additionally
because the portion of Nagase that the Examiner relies on for temperature
control has “nothing to do with temperature . . . of a resin film during the
deposition of the thermoplastic particles onto the resin film’s surface.” App.
Br. 8. According to Appellants, Nagase’s disclosure in column 9, at lines
32–39, discloses mixing the thickening agent in powder form with liquid
polymerizable monomer to form a swelled material which affects the
viscosity of the resin composition. Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds that Nagase teaches that controlling the
temperature to a desired range allows the resin to exhibit controlled and
excellent viscosity for processing. Ans. 9.
As discussed above, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
of error in the rejection of claim 31. We also are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Nagase teaches controlling temperature of the
resin to achieve “a controlled and excellent viscosity for processing”
because the Examiner’s finding is supported by the record. Nagase 9:32–39.
The fact that Nagase discloses a preferred processing temperature range for a
resin mixed with thickening agent to form a swelled material does not negate
Nagase’s broader disclosure to control the resin temperature during
Appeal 2018-004106
Application 14/053,756

7
processing. Moreover, claim 39 does not recite a particular temperature
range.
In sum, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of claims 31–43.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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