The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2021000112 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

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.
15/641,005 07/03/2017 Lichao PAN AA1087 3763
27752 7590 10/20/2021
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SHAH, SAMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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):
centraldocket.im@pg.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LICHAO PAN, ZHAN CHENG, XU HUANG,
and SHUO SONG

Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005
Technology Center 1700

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–13, and 16–22.2
See Appeal Br. 1–5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed July 3, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered
March 17, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer entered July 20, 2020 (“Ans.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies The Procter & Gamble Company, as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to blended polypropylene and
silicone films. Spec. 2, ll. 13–16. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 6, Claims App.):
1. A film comprising at least one layer, wherein the at
least one layer comprises:
a) 80% to 99%, by weight of the at least one layer, of at
least one polypropylene (PP) polymer of a PP component;
b) 1 % to 20%, by weight of the at least one layer, of at
least one silicone of a silicone component; and
c) 0% to 15%, by weight of the at least one layer, of an
optional ingredient, wherein the at least one layer has a
percentage of crystallinity of less than 95% as determined by
Wide-Angle X-ray Diffraction (WAXD), and
wherein the at least one layer has a presence of an
equatorial streak as determined by Small-Angle X-ray
Scattering (SAXS).
Claims 17 and 18 are also independent and recite similar films.3
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 7–8.

3 Although claim 11 appears to be written as a dependent claim, it does not
recite any claim dependency. Appeal Br. 7, (Claims App.). The Examiner
treated claim 11 as if it depends from claim 1. See Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wang et
al.
(“Wang”)
US 2015/0048153 A1 Feb. 19, 2015
LCY LCY Chemical Corp., OHSAS 18001 Certified,
https://www.lcygroup.com/lcygroup/Upload/product/
product_11464_RACO_ST611.pdf
last visited Sept. 2021
Oct. 26, 2018
Xiameter XIAMETER PMX-200 Silicone Fluid, 5,000-60,000
cSt, Dow Corning Corporation,
https://www.ulbrich.at/chemical-
technicalproducts/TDS_Xiameter_PMX_200_Sil_Fluid
_5_000_to_60_000CS.pdf, last visited Sept. 2021
Aug. 13, 2010

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–13, 16, 18–20, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Wang as evidenced by LCY
and Xiameter. Final Act. 3–4.
2. Claims 5, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wang. Final Act. 4–5.

OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 4–5. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

4
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Wang discloses a single
layer including 86–99.9% by weight polypropylene polymer and 0.1–5% by
weight of a siloxane fluid. Final Act. 3 (citing Wang ¶¶ 46, 48, 52, and 58).
The Examiner found that because Wang discloses the same composition as
claimed and that the composition has reduced crystallinity, the composition
of Wang inherently has the same properties as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing
Wang ¶ 7).4
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues Wang fails to disclose “an equatorial streak as
determined by Small-Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS)” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 3. Appellant contends Wang discloses a blow molded container,
not a film, and the Specification discloses a film and details of processing
the film to form an equatorial streak, whereas Wang is silent as to such
methods. Id. at 3–4. Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided
sufficient technical reasoning to support the position that the blow molded
container of Wang inherently has the same properties as the claimed film.
Id. at 4.
Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. There is no dispute
that Wang discloses polypropylene and silicone components in the amounts
recited in claim 1. Wang ¶¶ 48, 52, 55, and 58. Rather, as discussed above,

4 The Examiner relies on LCY and Xiameter for certain characteristics for
the polypropylene and siloxane disclosed in Wang in rejecting claims 7 and
11. Final Act. 3–4. Since those findings are not challenged by Appellant,
we find it unnecessary to discuss these references further.
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

5
Appellant’s arguments center around whether Wang discloses a film, and
whether the film would have the properties recited in claim 1, and in
particular the recited equatorial streak.
In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the recited “film
comprising at least one layer” in claim 1 is anticipated by the single layer
containers disclosed in Wang. Wang ¶¶ 45, 46. Appellant has not presented
a sufficient argument that would support a patentable distinction between a
film and a single layer container as disclosed in Wang, particularly where
the Specification describes films as having at least one or more layers that
may be extrusion blown. Spec. 5, ll. 4–9; see also Ans. 3–4.
As to the properties recited in claim 1, we do not agree with Appellant
that the Examiner did not provide a sufficient technical explanation to
support the position that Wang inherently has the same properties as the film
recited in claim 1. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s position that
relies on the similarities between the compositions as well as Wang’s
express disclosure that the obtained containers have reduced crystallinity.
Wang ¶ 7.
In this regard, we are of the view the Examiner’s position is
sufficiently supported by the record. The Specification describes “the
desired ‘gloss’ visual effect [of the oriented PP film is] with an SAXS
pattern showing increased scattering intensity perpendicular to the MD
[machine direction], i.e. and equatorial streak.” Spec. 17, ll. 27–29. The
Specification describes that the lower temperature stretching process
described therein along with the composition including silicone “reduces the
crystallinity,” and “increase[s] the film glossiness.” Spec. 18, ll. 4–8.
Although the Specification discloses these results are due in part to the
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

6
particular stretching process, the Specification provides a clear correlation
between reduced crystallinity and gloss, and that the presence of an
equatorial streak is due to the gloss effect. We emphasize that claim 1
recites only the presence of an equatorial streak, which would include any
amount of equatorial streak. Indeed, the Specification confirms this
understanding by describing that films “having a weak, yet present
equatorial streak” are “preferred films.” Spec. 18, ll. 15–17.
As discussed above, Wang discloses the container has reduced
crystallinity. In addition, Wang discloses as a result of the siloxane additive,
the container has a “glossy” effect due to the formed micro-layer structure
produced due to stretching of the material in the blow molding process.
Wang ¶ 65. Thus, we are of the view that the Examiner’s reliance on the
composition in Wang and the reduced crystallinity disclosed therein is
sufficient to support the position that an equatorial streak (no matter how
weak) is necessarily present in Wang’s container. “[W]hen the PTO shows
sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664
(CCPA 1971). Appellant has not met this burden.
Accordingly, based on this record, we are of the view that there is
sufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s position that the properties
recited in claim 1 are inherent in the single layer containers disclosed in
Wang.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Wang.
Appeal 2021-000112
Application 15/641,005

7
Rejection 2
Claims 5, 17, and 21 are the subject of Rejection 2. As indicated in
the Appeal Brief, Appellant relies either on the dependency of claims 5 and
21, or in the case of independent claim 17, the same arguments as discussed
above with respect to claim 1 as a basis for patentability. Appeal Br. 3, 5.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 2 for similar reasons as discussed
above for Rejection 1.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–
13, 16, 18–
20, 22
102(a) Wang, LCY,
Xiameter
1, 3, 4, 6–
13, 16, 18–
20, 22

5, 17, 21 103 Wang 5, 17, 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–13,
16–22

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED