DSM IP ASSETS B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2020004772 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
14/425,438 03/03/2015 Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Hendriks BHD-4662-2982 8580
23117 7590 08/03/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LEONARD, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2021 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES WILHELMUS MARIA HENDRIKS,
ADRIAAN HOFLAND, MICHEL POUL TICHELAAR,
BAS TUIJTELAARS, AMYKE VEURINK, and BAUKE DE VRIES
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15, 17, 21, 22, 26–28, 38, 43–45, 49,
52–55, 59, 62–65, 69, 72–75, 79, 82–85, 89, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Killilea ’346 (US 2011/0172346 A1, pub. July
14, 2011) in view of either Nothnagel (US 2002/0028874 A1, pub. Mar. 7,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies DSM IP Assets, BV as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed February 25, 2020, 2.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

2
2002) or Killilea ’249 (US 2007/0027249 A1, pub. Feb. 1, 2007). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to resins for coating compositions in decorative,
flooring, or protective applications, especially to water-dispersible, air-
drying uralkyd resins comprising fatty acid modified polyester polyols,
aqueous dispersions thereof, as well as processes of making and using these
resins and compositions. Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 3, 2015, 1:3–
7.2
Claim 15, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
15. A solvent assisted dispersion (SAD) process for preparing
an aqueous polycondensate dispersion substantially free of
solvents, said polycondensate comprises a uralkyd, wherein the
process comprises the steps of:
(a) reacting in the presence of a non-protic solvent a
mixture of:
(i) one or more polycondensate monomers,
polycondensate oligomers and/or polycondensate
polymers comprising a plurality of isocyanate-reactive
groups; wherein the monomers, oligomers and/or
polymers comprises 2–10% by weight (components) of
an acid group selected from the group consisting of alkali
metal sulfo salts of benzene dicarboxylic acids and alkali
metal sulfo salts of benzene dicarboxylic acid esters, and
wherein the acid group has a pKa less than 3; and

2 This Decision also cites to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated April 6,
2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 5, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

3
(ii) at least one multifunctional isocyanate,
to form a mixture of a first polycondensate resin
and the non-protic solvent;
(b) optionally, reacting the first polycondensate from step
(a) with at least one monomer, oligomer and/or polymer
different from component (a) to form a second polycondensate
resin;
(c) dispersing, in the absence of a neutralization step with
neutralizing agents selected from the group consisting of
amines, NaOH, KOH and LiOH, the first polycondensate resin
from step (a) and/or the second polycondensate resin from step
(b) in an aqueous medium to form an aqueous polycondensate
dispersion; and
(d) removing substantially all of the non-protic solvent
from the dispersion from step (c) to form the aqueous
polycondensate dispersion substantially-free of solvent, and
wherein the first polycondensate and/or second
polycondensate comprises an uralkyd that has a weight average
molecular weight, as measured via Size Exclusion
Chromatography with 1,1,1,3,3,3 hexafluoro isopropanol as
eluent, of from 5,000 to 500,000 daltons.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

4
reversible error in the stated rejections. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections based substantially on the fact findings, reasoning,
and conclusions set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our
own. We offer the following for emphasis.
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, but focuses on the
limitations of claim 15 only. The remaining claims, therefore, stand or fall
with claim 15. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner finds that Killilea ’346 discloses aqueous polyurethane
dispersions, methods of making these dispersions, and articles coated with
these dispersions. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Killilea ’346’s method
comprises reacting dimethylolpropionic acid (“DMPA”), a polyester polyol
(neopentyl glycol/adipic acid), an isocyanate compound, and an alkyd-based
polyol derived from cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, trimethylolpropane, and
soya fatty acids. Id. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Killilea ’346
adds trimethylamine to neutralize the carboxyl groups, the Examiner finds
Killilea ’346 also discloses that neutralization is not required if a salt-
containing group such as 5-sodiosulfo isophthalic acid (“SSIPA”) or 5-
lithosulfo isophthalic acid is added to the prepolymer. Id. The Examiner
further finds that Killilea ’346 discloses that the molecular weight of the
polymers may vary widely, may be tailored for particular applications, and
ranges from 6–120 kDa. Id. at 4. In addition, the Examiner finds that Killilea
’346 discloses that the amount of salt-containing group or aliphatic
dicarboxylic acid group ranges from 4–12 parts by weight. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that Killilea ’346’s examples do not
include SSIPA, but finds that the incorporation of SSIPA to alkyd-based
polyester polyols in the preparation of polyurethane dispersions was known
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

5
in the art as evidenced by Nothnagel and Killilea ’249. Ans. 4, 5. The
Examiner, therefore, concludes that it would have been obvious to include
SSIPA in the preparation of Killilea ’346’s dispersion in order to provide
improved film properties such as corrosion resistance, humidity resistance,
and early water resistance as taught by Nothnagel and because the use of
SSIPA does not require high volatile organic compound (“VOC”) solvents
or a neutralization step and avoids difficult and proprietary processing
techniques as taught by Killilea ’249. Id.
Appellant argues that the “Third Factual Declaration of Bas
Tuijtelaars”3 demonstrated the criticality and purposiveness of the use of 2–
10 wt.% of a metal sulfo salt with a pKa less than 3. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends that this declaration showed that aqueous uralkyd dispersions
prepared according to the process of claim 15 “possessed inter alia (i) good
stability, and (ii) good (enhanced) blocking resistance.” Id., citing to Table
A. Appellant further contends that though disclosing that SSIPA may be
included to enable the PU prepolymer to be suitably dispersed in an aqueous
carrier without requiring a neutralization step, Killilea ’346 fails to disclose
that the amount of SSIPA must necessarily be within the range of 2–10 wt.%
to reliably achieve good stability and good blocking resistance. Id. at 7–8.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant’s evidence fails to demonstrate the criticality or unexpected
results for the range of 2–10 wt.% of a metal sulfo salt with a pKa less
than 3 commensurate in scope with the claim 15. As the Examiner
determines (Ans. 6), without dispute, Appellant’s evidence uses only “one

3 Third Factual Declaration of Bas Tuijtelaars, dated November 20, 2017.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

6
specific alkali metal sulfo salt[] of benzene dicarboxylic acid whereby the
acid group has a specific pKa of less than 3 . . . , three specific polyester
polyols . . . , and three specific polyisocyanate components.” Nor does
Appellant’s evidence demonstrate that the use of SSIPA in amounts over the
range of 2–10 wt.% necessarily leads to improvements in stability and
blocking resistance. Table A shows only two examples, 3.5 and 7.4 wt.%,
within the claimed range, and Appellant fails to explain why these two
examples provide support for the entire claimed range. Also, Table A
indicates that the comparative examples failed to achieve a successful
dispersion, rather than dispersions whose stability and blocking resistance
was inferior to the inventive examples.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the prior art discloses use of SSIPA
without a neutralization step to successfully disperse the PU prepolymer in
an aqueous carrier. Ans. 7. This finding suggests that determining the
working amount of SSIPA to successfully disperse the PU prepolymer in an
aqueous carrier was within the ordinary skill in the art.4
Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies
on the substitution of SSIPA for DMPA in Killilea ’346’s process, but that
SSIPA and DMPA are not interchangeable. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant notes
that DMPA is a dihydroxy carboxylic acid or diol molecule with both
hydroxyl and carboxyl functionality. Id. at 9–10. On the other hand,

4 Appellant responds that “even if the DMPA were to have been
interchangeable with SSIPA (a point that is not admitted by [Appellant]), no
amount of DMPA would have resulted in good stability and good
(enhanced) blocking resistance.” Reply Br. 3. However, no example in Table
A uses DMPA. As such, Appellant’s response fails to rebut the Examiner’s
finding.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

7
Appellant asserts that SSIPA is a salt that has no hydroxyl groups and two
carboxyl groups. Id. at 11. Appellant contends that DMPA has a very
different chemical structure and chemical nature as compared to SSIPA. Id.
Appellant further contends that Killilea ’346 fails to teach any amount of
SSIPA that may be incorporated into the dispersion or that SSIPA may be
used in place of or as an alternative to DMPA. Id. at 12. Appellant asserts
that the Tuijtelaars Declaration (III) establishes that there is no predictability
nor equivalency when using SSIPA and DMPA to prepare uralkyd resins
according to the claimed invention. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because the
Examiner’s position that substitution of SSIPA for DMPA for use in
forming the claimed dispersion would have been obvious is supported by the
applied prior art. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 7), Killilea ’346 discloses a
method of reacting 6 wt.% DMPA with alkyd-based polyol, polyester, and
isocyanate, and then neutralizing the carboxyl groups by trimethylamine
prior to forming an aqueous dispersion. Killilea ’346 ¶¶ 207–209. However,
Killilea ’346 also discloses that SSIPA may be used in place of or as an
alternative to DMPA, which obviates the need for a separate neutralization
step. Id. ¶¶ 73–77.
Specifically, paragraph 73 teaches that the PU prepolymer preferably
contains a suitable amount of salt-containing and/or salt-forming groups to
facilitate preparation of a PU dispersion with an aqueous carrier. Killilea
’346 ¶ 73. Paragraph 74 teaches examples of suitable salt-forming groups
including neutralizable groups which, when neutralized, form salt groups
useful for dispersing the PU prepolymer into an aqueous carrier. Id. ¶ 74.
Paragraph 75 teaches DMPA as an example of a compound having such a
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

8
salt-forming group. Id. ¶ 75. Paragraph 76 teaches that any acid or base may
be used to neutralize the acidic or basic salt-forming groups, and paragraph
77 then teaches, as an alternative to compounds having salt-forming groups
requiring neutralization, the use of a salt-containing group, such as SSIPA,
that does not require neutralization. Id. ¶¶ 76, 77.
For the purpose disclosed in Killilea ’346, any structural difference
between DMPA and SSIPA is not relevant given that both react with the
alkyd-based polyol, polyester, and isocyanate so as to facilitate the
dispersion of the resulting PU prepolymer in an aqueous carrier. Thus,
contrary to Appellant’s argument, Killilea ’346 teaches DMPA and SSIPA
are suitable alternatives to each other for incorporation into the PU
prepolymer to facilitate its dispersion in aqueous media. Furthermore, an
ordinary artisan would understand from Killilea ’346’s disclosures discussed
above, that similar amounts of salt-forming group compound would be used,
whether DMPA or SSIPA. As such, an ordinary artisan would have found it
obvious to use the same amount of SSIPA as Killilea ’346 teaches for other
salt-forming groups including DMPA, i.e., 4–12 parts by weight. Killilea
’346 ¶ 83.
With regard to Appellant’s assertion that the Tuijtelaars Declaration
(III) establishes that there is no predictability nor equivalency when using
SSIPA and DMPA to prepare uralkyd resins according to the claimed
invention, Appellant fails to direct our attention to any particular portion of
this declaration, nor explain in any detail what evidence is presented that
demonstrates lack of predictability and equivalency, especially in light of the
weight of Killilea ’346’s teaching to the contrary.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

9
Appellant next argues that Killilea ’346 fails to disclose use of 4–12
parts by weight of the salt-forming group. Appeal Br. 12–14. Appellant
contends that Killilea ’346’s disclosure refers to 4–12 parts of an aliphatic
dicarboxylic acid, not a salt nor DMPA nor SSIPA, which may be
incorporated into the PU dispersion. Id. at 13. Also, Appellant contends that
this teaching does not apply to DMPA which is not an aliphatic dicarboxylic
acid. Id. Appellant also notes that trimethylamine must be added to the salt
groups on the PU prepolymer, such that the amount of aliphatic dicarboxylic
acid does not refer to a salt-containing group, let alone SSIPA. Id. at 14.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because it
mischaracterizes Killilea ’346’s disclosure regarding the salt-containing
and/or salt-forming groups in paragraphs 73–77 as not including the
aliphatic dicarboxylic acid of paragraph 83. However, Killilea ’346 discloses
that the salt-forming group compound very broadly to include carboxylic
acids. Killilea ’346 ¶ 74. Killilea ’346 also discloses that the reaction
between polyols, isocyanate, and carboxylic acid compounds provides the
prepolymer with carboxylic acid functionality, which can then be neutralized
to provide salt groups. Id. ¶ 75. In addition, Killilea ’346 teaches that a
suitable PU dispersion of the invention can be made by reacting the aliphatic
carboxylic acid with isocyanate and an alkyd polyol, neutralizing the
resulting PU prepolymer with trimethylamine to form salt groups, and then
dispersing the prepolymer in water, consistent with the disclosure in
paragraphs 73–77. Id. ¶ 83. Finally, Killilea ’346 again teaches that the
choice of which dicarboxylic acid to use and in what amount may be
determined based on the desire end use. Id. Thus, as indicated above, an
ordinary artisan would understand from Killilea ’346’s disclosures that
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

10
similar amounts of salt-forming group compounds would be used, whether
aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, DMPA, or SSIPA. As such, an ordinary artisan
would have found it obvious to use the same amount of SSIPA as
Killilea ’346 teaches for other salt-forming groups including aliphatic
dicarboxylic acid, i.e., 4–12 parts by weight.
Appellant next argues that Killilea ’346 fails to disclose “[s]teps (a)
and (c) of claim [15].” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). In this regard,
Appellant notes that Killilea ’346’s Example 1 uses a neutralization step
with trimethylamine and fails to use SSIPA. Id. at 14–17.
This argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider
Killilea ’346 as a whole including other disclosures wherein SSIPA may be
used as the salt-forming group compound such that a neutralization step is
not required. See Killilea ’346 ¶ 77. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.” (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (explaining that a prior art reference’s disclosure
is not limited to its examples).
Appellant next argues that Nothnagel discloses the criticality of
neutralization. Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant asserts that Nothnagel does not
disclose incorporation of SSIPA and thus fails to suggest that SSIPA could
be employed in the absence of neutralization. Id. at 18. As such, Appellant
contends that Nothnagel teaches away from use of SSIPA without
neutralization. Id. at 18–19.
We disagree. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

11
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, references in a combination may be
said to teach away where their combined teachings would produce a
“seemingly inoperative device.” See In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587
(CCPA 1969). Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does
not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d
433, 438 (CCPA 1965).
Initially, we reiterate the Examiner’s findings that Killilea ’346
teaches that SSIPA may be used as the salt-forming group compound
without the need for neutralization. Moreover, Appellant’s argument fails to
consider the teachings of Nothnagel as a whole. For example, Nothnagel
teaches that the polymer may be preneutralized by making the polymer with
a metal salt of an ionizable group such as carboxylic acid, sulfonic acid, or
mixtures thereof. Nothnagel ¶ 89. Moreover, Nothnagel discloses SSIPA as
an example of a compound providing such a preneutralized polymer. Id. ¶
92; see also ¶¶ 90–91. As such, Nothnagel’s disclosure is consistent with
Killilea ’346’s teaching that SSIPA may be used without neutralization, and
clearly does not teach away from the claimed invention.
Appellant next argues that Killilea ’346 fails to teach the recited
weight average molecular weights (“Mw”), but rather teaches peak
molecular weights (“Mp”). Appeal Br. 19. Appellant contends that
Killilea ’346’s Mp cannot be considered to be equivalent to Mw. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that Mw is a molecular weight value
that is sensitive to higher molecular weight fractions, whereas Mp is the
highest possible molecular weight. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

12
Killilea ’346’s Mp range sits inside of (i.e., is encompassed within) the
claimed Mw range and, therefore, meets the claimed Mw. Id.
In rebuttal, Appellant asserts that, unsurprisingly, neither Killilea ’346
nor any other prior art reference discloses any relationship between Mp and
Mw because there is no such relationship. Reply Br. 11. Appellant urges that
Mw is one way of describing the molar mass of a polymer, whereas Mp
corresponds to the molecular weight of the highest peak of the molar mass
distribution independent of the number of moles of each molecular weight
species. Id. Thus, Appellant contends that “[o]nly if one is in a position to
know (record) the entire molar mass distribution of a polymer, will that
person be able to identify the highest peak and determine the Mp.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant fails to consider the entirety of Killilea ’346’s disclosure
regarding the molecular weight of the PU prepolymer. As discussed above,
the Examiner finds that Killilea ’346 discloses that the molecular weight of
the polymers may vary widely, may be tailored for particular applications.
Ans. 4; Killilea ’346 ¶ 79. Indeed, Killilea ’346 discloses that the PU
prepolymer may be chain extended to obtain higher molecular weights.
Killilea ’346 ¶ 78. Although Appellant is correct that Mp and Mw are not
equivalent metrics of molecular weight (Mp is the molecular weight of the
highest peak, and thus the mode, of a polymer molecular weight distribution,
whereas Mw is the average molecular weight of the distribution), there is a
reasonable likelihood that over the very broad range for Mw recited in claim
15 (5–500 kDa), Killilea ’346’s very broad range for Mp of 3–150 kDa
overlap. Nonetheless, we note that Killilea ’346 further teaches that the PU
prepolymer may have an Mn ranging from 1–150 kDa. Killilea ’346 ¶ 80.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

13
This disclosure, when combined with Killilea ’346’s teaching that the
molecular weight of the PU prepolymer may be tailored for particular
applications, reasonably supports the Examiner’s determination that
Killilea ’346 necessarily meets the claimed Mw. See E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A
prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a
claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” (quoting
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). In such cases as this,
“the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not
necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Appellant next argues that neither Nothnagel nor Killilea ’249 relates
to uralkyds, the polymers of Killilea ’346, and are thus not combinable with
Killilea ’346. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant contends that Killilea ’249 is merely
a general disclosure pertaining to polyurethanes. Id. Appellant also contends
that Nothnagel refers to polyesters, alkyds, acrylics, and hybrids thereof, and
is silent about polyurethanes and uralkyds. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. We understand
this argument to be that an ordinary artisan would not have combined the
teachings of Nothnagel and Killilea ’249 with Killilea ’346 because the
secondary teachings are non-analogous prior art. Our reviewing court has
stated that
[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

14
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal
quotes omitted). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may
be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, both Nothnagel and Killilea ’249 are reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which Appellant is involved, which relates to
providing stable aqueous dispersions that produce coatings with low VOC
content and good water resistance. Spec. 3:6–25. For example, Nothnagel is
directed to aqueous polymer dispersions for producing coatings with low
VOC and good film properties. Nothnagel ¶¶ 3, 14, 15. Moreover,
Nothnagel teaches the importance of providing an ionizable group that
effects water dispersability of the polymer, and teaches SSIPA as a possible
reactant for providing such an ionizable group to the polymer. Id. ¶¶ 36, 61.
Likewise, Killilea ’249 is also directed to aqueous polymer dispersions for
producing coatings with low VOC and good coating properties. Killilea ’249
¶ 6. Killilea ’249 specifically teaches that SSIPA incorporated into the
polymer provides water dispersible polyurethanes. Id. ¶ 9. Moreover, we
note that although Killilea ’249’s Example 3 does not include isocyanate,
Example 4 uses the alkyd of Example 3 in preparing the PU prepolymer,
through reaction with isocyanate, followed by dispersion in water. Id. ¶ 69.
Therefore, both Nothnagel and Killilea ’249 are reasonably pertinent to a
problem with which Appellant is involved and are, therefore, analogous
prior art.
Appeal 2020-004772
Application 14/425,438

15
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 15, 17, 21, 22, 26–28, 38, 43–45, 49, 52–55, 59, 62–65, 69, 72–75,
79, 82–85, 89, 92, and 93 over the combination of Killilea ’346 in view of
either Nothnagel or Killilea ’249.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15,
17, 21, 22, 26–28, 38, 43–45, 49, 52–55, 59, 62–65, 69, 72–75, 79, 82–85,
89, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15, 17, 21,
22, 26–28,
38, 43–45,
49, 52–55,
59, 62–65,
69, 72–75,
79, 82–85,
89, 92, 93
103 Killilea ’346,
Nothnagel, Killilea
’249
15, 17, 21,
22, 26–28,
38, 43–45,
49, 52–55,
59, 62–65,
69, 72–75,
79, 82–85,
89, 92, 93

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED