Ex Parte 6,454,902 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

95002397 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

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.
95/002,397 09/15/2012 6,454,902 10007-114RX1 1050
96039 7590 08/19/2016
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
LOPEZ, CARLOS N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

SNF SAS.
Requester and Appellant

v.

CIBA SPECIALITY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENTS LTD.
Patent Owner and Cross-Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

2

Patent Owner Ciba Speciality Chemicals Water Treatments Ltd.
(“Patent Owner”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-6, 11-13, 15-17, 19-25, and 52-54.1,2
Third-Party Requester SNF SAS. (hereinafter “Requester”) urges that the
Examiner’s decision must be affirmed.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (pre-AIA). Requester also appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) (pre-AIA) the Examiner’s decision not to
adopt certain rejections of claims 7-10, 13, 14, 18, 26-51, and 55.4
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-6, 11-13,
15-17, 19-25, and 52-54. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision not to
adopt certain rejections of claims 8 and 14. By operation of rule, our
reversal of the Examiner’s decision not to adopt certain grounds of rejection
constitutes a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b). In addition, we
enter a new ground of rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 18, 26-51, and 55 under
our authority pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b).

1 Claim 1, the only independent claim, has been cancelled.
2 See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief 4 (filed February 17, 2015) (hereinafter
“PO App. Br.”) Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 28, 2015) (hereinafter
“Ans.”); Right of Appeal Notice (mailed November 7, 2014) (hereinafter
“RAN.”).
3 See Requester’s Corrected Respondent Brief (filed April 24, 2015)
(hereinafter “Req. Resp’t Br.”).
4 See Requester’s Appeal Brief 1 (filed February 17, 2015) (hereinafter
“Req. App. Br.”), Requester’s Rebuttal Brief (Req. Reb. Br. filed
June 29, 2015).
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Requester filed a request for inter partes reexamination of United
States Patent 6,454,902 B1 (hereinafter the “’902 Patent”) on
September 15, 2012. We are informed by both Patent Owner and Requester,
that there are no proceedings that will affect the pending appeal. (PO App.
Br. 4; Req. App. Br. 1.)
The ’902 Patent relates to processes of making paper and paperboard
from a cellulosic stock employing a particular flocculating system. (Col. 1,
ll. 7-9.) By way of brief background, in manufacturing paper and
paperboard, a cellulosic thin stock is drained on a moving screen to form a
sheet that is dried, and in the course of this process, it is known to add water
soluble polymers to a cellulosic suspension in order to aid flocculation of
cellulosic solids and enhance drainage on the moving screen. (Col. 1,
ll. 10-15.) The ’902 Patent is directed to further improving the drainage and
retention of the cellulosic suspension. (Col. 2, l. 34 – col. 3, l. 10.)
Claims 15 and 13, which are illustrative of the appealed subject matter,
read as follows:
1. A process for making paper or paper board
comprising forming a cellulosic suspension, flocculating the
suspension, draining the suspension on a screen to form a sheet
and then drying the sheet, wherein the cellulosic suspension is
flocculated by the addition of a water soluble cationic synthetic
polymer of intrinsic viscosity of at least 4 dl/g, wherein the
flocculated cellulosic suspension is subjected to mechanical
shearing and then reflocculated by a subsequent addition of a

5 As noted above, claim 1 has been cancelled. However, because claim 13
depends from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1,
we reproduce it here for the benefit of the reader.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

4
reflocculating system, and in which the reflocculating system
comprises
i) a siliceous material and
ii) a water soluble anionic polymer of intrinsic viscosity
at least 4 dl/g, and in which the
siliceous material (i) and water soluble anionic polymer
(ii) are added to the cellulosic suspension subsequent to the
centriscreen and wherein the cationic polymer is added to a thin
stock stream of the cellulosic suspension.
13. A process according to claim 1 in which the water
soluble anionic polymer has an intrinsic viscosity of at least
7 dl/g.

(PO App. Br. 23, 24, Claims App’x.)

Patent Owner contests the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims as
follows:
I. Claim 13 (as representative of claims 2-6, 11, 12, 15-17, 19-25,
and 52-54) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
WO 98/24973 (WO ’973) and WO 97/23691 (WO ’691, as
evidenced by its English equivalent EP 0 877 120 A1
(EP ’120));6
II. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973
and WO ’691;
III. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973
and WO ’691;and
IV. Claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973
and WO ’691.

6 Throughout the course of this Opinion, we refer to and discuss WO ’691
with reference to EP ’120 in order to avoid confusion.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

5

Requester contests the Examiner’s refusal to reject claims 7-10, 13,
14, 18, 26-51, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
V. Claims 7-9, 13, 14, 18, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over WO ’691 and WO ’973;
VI. Claim 7-9, 14, 18, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over WO ’973 and WO ’691;and
VII. Claims 10 and 26-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
WO ’691 and EP 0 235 893 (EP ’893).

Patent Owner’s Appeal
Rejection I
In challenging the Examiner’s rejection, Patent Owner makes three
main arguments, two of which relate specifically to limitations recited in
claim 1, which arguments are: (1) WO ’973 does not teach the addition of
cationic polymer to a thin stock stream (PO App. Br. 8-11); and (2) the prior
art fails to teach a cationic polymer having the intrinsic viscosity recited in
claim 1 (PO App. Br. 12-15). Patent Owner additionally argues that the
prior art does not disclose the intrinsic viscosity of the anionic polymer
recited in claim 13. (PO App. Br. 16-17.) We address each of the issues
raised by Patent Owner in turn.

Addition of Cationic Polymer to Thin Stock
Claim 1, recites, in pertinent part: “wherein the cationic polymer is
added to a thin stock stream of the cellulosic suspension.” The Examiner
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

6
stated: “[t]he phrase ‘a thin stock stream of the cellulosic suspension’ is
being defined as the stream that is being supplied to the headbox.” (RAN 5.)
The Examiner explained that it is known in the art that the headbox supplies
the thin stock to the machine wire (moving screen). Id. The Examiner
further explained that the paper art calls the stream circuit immediately prior
to the paper machine headbox the thin stock circuit because the stock has
been diluted to headbox consistency, which is consistent with the ’902
Patent. (RAN, 5-6 citing Dictionary of Paper, 5th Edition, TAPPI 1996,
page 13 “TAPPI”; ’902 Patent, col. 1, ll. 9-13.)
As a result, the Examiner found that WO ’973 discloses adding a
cationic polymer to a thin stock stream, because although WO ’973 discloses
addition of a cationic polymer to a “high consistency” (HC) suspension
flow, the HC suspension flow corresponds to a thin stock because it has a
solids concentration of 0.1% to 3.5% by weight and the stream in WO ’973
is supplied to the headbox. (RAN 10-11.)
Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
consider the HC suspension flow in WO ’973 to be a thick stock or another
stream in the paper making process, because the solids concentration of the
HC suspension flow in WO ’973 overlaps with solids concentrations for
thick stock disclosed in the prior art, specifically, the upper limit of 3.5% by
weight disclosed in EP ’893 and 3-6% by weight disclosed in TAPPI. (PO
App. Br. 10.) Patent Owner contends that it is the combined flow of the HC
suspension flow and the low consistency (LC) suspension flow in WO ’973
that would meet the description of the thin stock disclosed in the ’902 patent
as the solids concentration of the combined flow would be between the
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

7
solids concentration of the HC suspension flow and the LC suspension flow
(0-1.5% by weight). (PO App. Br. 10.) Patent Owner argues that EP ’120
does not clarify the teachings in WO ’973 because EP ’120 only describes
solids contents related to conducting retention and drainage tests and not
those used for making paper. (PO App. Br. 10-11.) Patent Owner argues
that Requester’s position that the HC suspension flow may be understood to
be thin stock does not make sense because the LC suspension flow and the
combined suspension flow would have a lower solids concentration than the
HC flow. (PO App. Br. 11.)
Requester contends that Patent Owner does not challenge that cationic
polymers are added to the stream supplied to the headbox and argues further
that there is no reason that thin stock cannot be diluted after it enters the
headbox. (Req. Resp’t Br. 2-3.)
The ’902 Patent does not expressly define what constitutes a “thin
stock,” but states:
According to the invention the water soluble polymers
added to the cellulosic suspension prior to the reflocculating
system may be added at any suitable point. The polymer may
be added very early in the process, for instance into the thick
stock, but is preferably added to the thin stock.
(’902 Patent, col. 5, ll. 26-32.)
WO ’973 discloses a “main aqueous flow” of stock containing
cellulosic fibers enters a head box, the “main aqueous flow” of stock having
a “high consistency” or “high solids content,” which has a consistency
“within the range from 0.1% to 3.5% by weight, suitably from 0.3% to 2.2%
and preferably from 0.4% to 1.9%.” (WO ’973, p. 3, ll. 3-8.) WO ’973
discloses a “diluting aqueous flow” which is a “low consistency” or “low
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

8
solids content” flow having a consistency “within the range of from 0-1.5%
by weight, suitably 0.002-0.9%, and preferably 0.005-0.8%.” (WO ’973, p.
3, ll. 8-13.) WO ’973 discloses that the LC flow must have a consistency
lower than the HC flow and the HC flow is mixed and diluted with the LC
flow in the headbox. (WO ’973, p. 3, ll. 13-15.) TAPPI defines an
“Approach Flow System,” which is also known as “the thin stock circuit,
because the stock has been diluted to headbox consistency at the fan pump,
or almost to headbox consistency at the cleaner feed pump.” (TAPPI, p. 13.)
TAPPI also discloses that the “thick stock circuit” has a consistency of
“typically 3-6%.” (TAPPI, p. 306.) WO ’973 discloses that a cationic
polymer may be used as a retention component, and that the cationic
polymer is introduced into the HC flow. (WO ’973, p. 8, ll. 3-9.)
In view of the evidence of record, Patent Owner has not persuaded us
that the Examiner has erred in finding that WO ’973 discloses the addition of
a cationic polymer to a thin stock stream as recited in claim 13 by way of its
dependency on claim 1. That is, it is clear that WO ’973 discloses the
addition of cationic polymer to the HC flow and that the HC flow is directly
applied to the headbox. As discussed above, it is known in the art that the
thin stock stream is a stream that is of a sufficient consistency to be supplied
to the headbox as is disclosed in WO ’973. That there may be slight overlap
in consistency (solids content) between that disclosed for the HC stream in
WO ’973 and the consistency disclosed for the thick stock stream in TAPPI
does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the HC
stream disclosed in ’973 to be a thick stock stream. Indeed, the majority of
the consistency range for the HC stream, as well as the preferred ranges,
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

9
taught by WO ’973 are below the range for thick stock streams disclosed in
TAPPI.
In addition, although Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have understood the HC flow, the LC flow, and the
combined flow as thin stock streams, Patent Owner has provided no
persuasive evidentiary support for this position. Given that both the HC
flow and LC flow are disclosed as being introduced to the headbox in
WO ’973, and have consistencies that align more with a thin stock stream
than a thick stock stream, we agree with the Examiner and Requester that
WO ’973 discloses the addition of cationic polymer to a thin stock stream.
There is insufficient evidence of record to support Patent Owner’s view that
because the HC flow is further diluted with the LC flow in WO ’973, that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the HC flow in
WO ’973 to be a thick stock stream. The claims do not exclude the step of
adding a further diluting stream to the thin stock in the headbox.

Intrinsic Viscosity of Cationic Polymer
Claim 13, by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, recites that the
water soluble cationic polymer has an intrinsic viscosity of at least 4 dl/g.
The Examiner found that WO ’973 discloses cationic acrylamide based
polymers with molecular weights of most preferably at least 1,000,000 and
usually below 20 million. (RAN 11, citing WO ’973, p. 6, ll. 20-25.) The
Examiner, in order to determine intrinsic viscosity, relied on the
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

10
Mark-Houwink-Sakurada equation7 and a constant value for poly(N, N’-
dimethyl-acrylamide) having a molecular weight range from 50,000 to
1.22 million from the Polymer Handbook,8 to find that the polymers having
the preferred molecular weights in WO ’973 have intrinsic viscosities of
16.8 dl/g. (RAN 11-12.) The Examiner also found that because intrinsic
viscosity is proportional to molecular weight, the intrinsic viscosities of the
cationic polymers disclosed in WO ’973 having molecular weights greater
than 1 million would be expected to have higher intrinsic viscosities than
16.8 dl/g. (RAN 12.) Requester agrees with the Examiner and points out
that the Examiner’s positions are consistent with other evidence of record.
(Req. Resp’t Br. 3-5.)
Patent Owner contends that it was inappropriate for the Examiner to
rely on the Polymer Handbook, because poly(N,N’-dimethyl-acrylamide) is
not a cationic polymer, and is irrelevant to the claims. (PO App. Br. 12-14.)
Patent Owner argues that because of this, the Examiner has not
demonstrated why a molecular weight of at least 1 million to less than 20
million for cationic acrylamide-based polymers would equate to the claimed
intrinsic viscosity of at least 4 dl/g. (PO App. Br. 14.) Patent Owner further
argues that WO ’973 does not inherently disclose the cationic polymer
intrinsic viscosity in claim 13, because WO ’973 does not direct a person of
ordinary skill in the art to select a particular polyacrylamide-based polymer.
(PO App. Br. 14.) In this regard, Patent Owner points out that according to
the same equation used by the Examiner, polymers falling within the

7 [n]=KMa, where [n] is intrinsic viscosity, K is a constant in dl/g and M is
the molecular weight.
8 Brandrup et al. Polymer Handbook. 1966, page IV-21.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

11
description of WO ’973, such as those with molecular weights of 500,000,
would have an intrinsic viscosity of 2.3 dl/g, which is lower than the range
recited in the claims. (PO App. Br. 14.)
WO ’973 discloses cationic acrylamide-based polymers as particularly
preferred retention components, with molecular weights “most preferably at
least 1,000,000” and usually below 20,000,000. (WO ’973, p. 6, ll. 13-25.)
The evidence of record also discloses that high molecular weight cationic
polymers used in retention systems are characterized by intrinsic viscosities
above 4 dl/g, and that such cationic polymers have molecular weights above
500,000. (EP ’893 p. 6, ll. 49-54; p. 7, l. 1; WO 95/21295, p. 1, ll. 20-26,
cited in the Request for Reexamination, Ex. F.) 9 As a result, the Examiner
had sufficient basis to support the position that all preferred cationic
acrylamide-based polymers disclosed in WO ’973 having a molecular
weight of 1 million to 20 million would have intrinsic viscosities within the
range recited in the claims.
Although we appreciate Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s use of the values for poly(N,N’-dimethyl-acrylamide) from the
Polymer Handbook in order to calculate intrinsic viscosity, we are not
persuaded that the cationic acrylamide-based polymers disclosed in
WO ’973, having a preferred molecular weight of 1 million to 20 million,

9 Indeed, U.S. Patent No. 5,676,796 (“the ’796 Patent”) expresses a
preference for cationic water soluble polymers having an intrinsic viscosity
as high as 15 dl/g for use in papermaking processes. (Req. App. Br. Exh. 11,
col. 3, ll. 58-61, col. 9, ll. 11-30.) Thus, given the disclosures of the prior
art, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
used cationic water soluble polymers having the intrinsic viscosity recited in
the claims.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

12
would not have intrinsic viscosities within the claimed ranges. Patent
Owner does not direct our attention to persuasive evidence that poly(N,N’-
dimethyl-acrylamide) could not be used as an example of an
acrylamide-based polymer sufficient to establish the relationship between
intrinsic viscosity and molecular weight with respect to the polymers
disclosed in WO ’973, having molecular weight of greater than 1 million.
For example, Patent Owner has not explained how the K value would have
been significantly different for a cationic polyacrylamide having a molecular
weight of 1 million to 20 million, or provided an alternative relevant K value
specific to cationic polyacrylamide polymers.
As discussed above, the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
position regarding the relationship between molecular weight and intrinsic
viscosity. Patent Owner’s calculation relating to polyacrylamide polymer
having a molecular weight of 500,000 corresponding to an intrinsic viscosity
of 2.3 dl/g is also not persuasive. (PO App. Br. 14.) As pointed out by
Requester, WO ’973 discloses preferred polymers with molecular weights of
1,000,000 to 20,000,000, which in light of the evidence of record discussed
above, would have an intrinsic viscosity within the claimed range. (See Req.
Resp’t Br. 5.) Moreover, EP ’120 teaches an intrinsic viscosity range for a
cationic copolymer of 5 to 30 dl/g and negative results if it is outside of this
range. (EP ’120, p. 7, ll. 31-34.) Thus, an intrinsic viscosity of at least
4 dl/g would have been obvious to use in the cationic copolymers disclosed
in WO ’973 even if a preferred intrinsic viscosity is not disclosed therein,
which is also consistent with the molecular weight calculation of the
Examiner.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

13
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that WO ’973 discloses water soluble cationic polymers having
an intrinsic viscosity as recited in the claims.

Intrinsic Viscosity of Anionic Polymer
Claim 13 recites that the water soluble anionic polymer has an
intrinsic viscosity of at least 7 dl/g. The Examiner found that WO ’973
discloses an anionic polymer having a molecular weight above 1 million and
up to 40,000,000, relying on similar a similar position that such polymers
would have an intrinsic viscosity meeting the range recited in the claims as
discussed above with respect to the cationic polymer. (RAN 12-13.)
Requester agrees with the Examiner for similar reasons as discussed above
with respect to the anionic polymer. (Req. Resp’t Br. 6.)
Patent Owner provides similar arguments as to why WO ’973 does
not disclose an anionic polymer having an intrinsic viscosity as claimed as
those provided with respect to the cationic polymer as discussed above. (PO
App. Br. 15-17.)
WO ’973 discloses anionic acrylamide-based polymers with
molecular weights “suitably” above 1,000,000, “preferably above 5,000,000
and most preferably above 10,000,000” where the molecular weight is
usually below about 40,000,000. (WO ’973 p. 9, ll. 15-23.)
For the reasons discussed above with respect to the cationic polymer,
we agree with the Examiner that WO ’973 discloses anionic water-soluble
polymers having an intrinsic viscosity within the recited range.

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

14
Claim 11 (Rejection II)
For claim 11, which recites that the water soluble cationic polymer
has an intrinsic viscosity of at least 7 dl/g, the Examiner appears to rely on
the same rationale for the cationic polymer as set forth for claim 13. (See
RAN 11-12.) Patent Owner contends that the Examiner has not
demonstrated that the cationic polymer has an intrinsic viscosity of at least
7 dl/g for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 13. (PO App.
Br. 17-18.)
For the same reasons as discussed above with respect to the cationic
polymer, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 11.

Claims 22 and 54 (Rejections III and IV)
Claim 22 recites that the water-soluble cationic polymer is prepared
by solution polymerization, water-in-oil suspension polymerization, or
water-in-oil emulsion polymerization. Claim 54 recites that the
water-soluble anionic polymer is prepared by solution polymerization or
water-in-oil emulsion polymerization. The Examiner found that WO ’973 is
silent on how the polymers are made, but found that the ’902 Patent
characterizes the processes recited in claims as conventional, such that a
person of ordinary skill in the art, absent direction from WO ’973 on how to
make the polymers, would have used the conventional processes recited in
the claims. (RAN 15 (citing ’902 Patent, col. 5, ll. 15-25).) Requester
agrees with the Examiner. (Req. Resp’t Br. 7-8.)
Patent Owner argues that EP ’120 discloses that the use of dispersion
polymerization is critical to producing the water-soluble cationic polymers,
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

15
and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not ignore this critical
teaching in EP ’120. (PO App. Br. 19.) Patent Owner contends that EP ’120
discloses that polymers produced by dispersion polymerization have
different properties and structures than polymers produced by other
methods, and EP ’120 teaches away from using aqueous solution, emulsion
polymerization, and water-in-oil suspension polymerization. (PO App.
Br. 19-20.) That is, Patent Owner argues that the rejection ignores
fundamental teachings of EP ’120 that the invention disclosed therein relies
on the polymers produced by dispersion polymerization having improved
retention and/or drainage properties over polymers produced by other
polymerization methods. (PO App. Br. 20.) Patent Owner contends that
while EP ’120 discloses aqueous solution polymerization and reverse-phase
emulsion polymerization, such methods are not disclosed as alternatives to
methods to make the polymers used in EP ’120’s invention, but rather are
used to demonstrate the importance of using dispersion polymerization. (PO
App. Br. 21.) Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that there is insufficient
evidence of record to ignore these teachings and utilize the methods recited
in the claims. (PO App. Br. 21.)
Patent Owner argues also that the Examiner relies solely on Patent
Owner’s own disclosure, and therefore the rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight. (PO App. Br. 20.) Patent Owner relies on similar
arguments for claim 54. (PO App. Br. 22.)
In adopting the rejection, the Examiner relied on EP ’120 for the
manner of adding the flocculating systems and reflocculating systems of
WO ’973, and not for the polymerization methods. (RAN 14, 24-25.)
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

16
Patent Owner does not dispute that the polymerization methods recited in the
claims are conventional. Although EP ’120 may describe particular benefits
of utilizing dispersion polymerization over solution polymerization or water-
in-oil polymerization, EP ’120 does not suggest that polymers produced by
other polymerization methods, while less preferred, would be unsatisfactory
for retention and/or drainage. Rather, EP ’120 confirms the Examiner’s
finding that solution polymerization or water-in-oil polymerization are
conventional in the art, if not somewhat less desirable than dispersion
polymerization. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 552-3 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A
known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because
it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the
same use.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument in this regard is not
persuasive.
With respect to the contention that the Examiner inappropriately
relied on the specification of the ’902 Patent, we are not persuaded by this
argument. The disclosure in the ’902 Patent itself merely names
conventional techniques for preparing polymers, citing to prior art for the
processes as examples. (’902 Patent, col. 5, ll. 16-25.) As such, we agree
with Requester that the Examiner’s citation of the ’902 Patent was only to
show that the polymerization methods recited in the claims are conventional
methods. (Req. Resp’t Br. 7.) In assessing the obviousness of the subject
matter recited in the claims on appeal, prior art references must be read in
context, taking into account “demands known to the design community,”
“the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art,” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

17
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007); see also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[A]
prior art reference must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’”) (quoting In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559,
562 (CCPA 1978)). The background knowledge attributable to one of
ordinary skill in the art includes what was admittedly known in the art at the
time of the invention. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a patent that something is in
the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations of
anticipation and obviousness.”); In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570–71
(CCPA 1975) (using the admitted prior art in applicant’s Specification to
determine the patentability of a claimed invention.); In re Fout, 675 F.2d
297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“[i]t is not unfair or contrary to the policy of the
patent system that appellants’ invention be judged on obviousness against
their actual contribution to the art”) (footnote omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 54.

Requester’s Appeal

Rejection of Claims 7-9, 14, 18, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over WO ’973 and WO ’691 (Rejection VI)
Claims 7, 9, and 55
Claims 7 and 55 recite that the water soluble cationic polymer has a
change density below 5 meq/g and below 4 meq/g, respectively. The
Examiner stated that there was no evidence of record to support the
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

18
combination of the references regarding the specific limitations of claim 7
sufficient for a conclusion of obviousness. (RAN 16, 25.) For claim 55, the
Examiner further stated that there is no evidence to support Requester’s
contention that the cationic polymers disclosed in WO ’973 are the same as
used in EP ’120. (RAN 17.)
Claim 9 recites that the water soluble cationic polymer comprises up
to 50% by weight cationic monomer units. The Examiner stated that there
was no evidence of record to support the combination of the references
regarding the specific limitations of claim 9 sufficient for a conclusion of
obviousness. (RAN 16, 25.)
Requester contends that both WO ’973 and EP ’120 disclose the same
type of cationic acrylamide-based polymers, and that as explained by the
Examiner, EP ’120 discloses an example of a cationic polymer, which has a
charge density of 1.49 meq/g. (Req. App. Br. 11, quoting the First Office
Action mailed December 3, 2012, p. 8, Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination, p. 38.) Requester contends that the cationic polymers
disclosed in WO ’973 “must inevitably have had a particular charge density
(which may well have been below 5 meq/g), even if not specified in
WO ’973.” (Req. App. Br. 11-12.) Requester argues that there is no
suggestion in the ’902 Patent or in the evidence of record that charge
densities below 5 meq/g produce any unexpected effect. (Req. App. Br. 12.)
Requester further argues that using cationic polymers having a charge
density according to EP ’120 would only require that one of ordinary skill in
the art adopt the values of charge density disclosed in EP ’120 in the absence
of that information in WO ’973. (Req. App. Br. 12.) Requester contends
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

19
that because the Examiner found that EP ’120 provides guidance on the
manner of adding the flocculating system, the information on charge density
of the cationic polymers disclosed therein would have been equally useful,
because a choice regarding charge density must be made. (Req. App. Br. 12,
13.) Requester argues that the Examiner’s reasons for finding claims 7 and
55 patentable are unclear. (Req. App. Br. 12-13.)
Regarding claim 9, Requester relies on arguments similar to the
arguments for claim 7, which specifies charge density, contending that an
upper limit for the relative amount of cationic monomer unit has the same
effect as specifying an upper limit for charge density. (Req. App. Br. 14.)
Requester also argues that EP ’120 discloses water soluble cationic polymers
that comprise up to 50% by weight cationic monomer units, including
cationic polymers having 10-20% by weight cationic monomers. (Req. App.
Br. 14, citing EP ’120, Table 1.) As a result, Requester contends that it
would have been obvious to have employed water soluble cationic polymers
having the recited range of cationic monomer units in the papermaking
process taught by the combination of WO ’973 and EP ’120 as a
combination of prior art elements in known methods that would lead to
predictable results. (Req. App. Br. 14.)
Patent Owner acknowledges that cationic polymers have a charge
density, but argues that selection of charge density is not arbitrary according
to the ’902 Patent. (PO Resp’t Br. 14.) Patent Owner also contends that
contrary to Requester’s arguments, the cationic polymers in WO ’973 and
EP ’120 are not exactly the same, such that one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

20
would not have substituted the cationic polymers in WO ’973 with cationic
polymers in EP ’120 having the claimed charge density. (PO Resp Br. 14.)
For claim 9, Patent Owner contends that EP ’120 discloses cationic
polymers having greater than 50% by weight10 cationic groups, citing
Examples E and F, and Requester has not provided a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would choose to modify the cationic polymers in
WO ’973 with a cationic polymer having up to 50% cationic groups instead
of a copolymer having greater than 50% cationic groups. (PO Resp’t Br.
15.) Patent Owner does not dispute that EP ’120 also discloses cationic
polymers having less than 50% by weight cationic groups. Nor does Patent
Owner dispute that EP ’120 discloses cationic polymers having a charge
density within the claimed ranges of claims 7 and 55.
Upon consideration of the evidence of record, we agree with
Requester that claims 7, 9, and 55 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We observe that the
’902 Patent describes charge densities in relation to the ionic monomer unit
content, and, while indicating preferred ionic contents, the ’902 Patent
assigns no criticality to the charge density or percentage of cationic
monomer used to produce that cationic water soluble polymers recited in the
claims. (’902 Patent, col. 3, ll. 53-58.)
EP ’120 does not discuss the charge density of the cationic polymers.
EP ’120 discloses a cationic polymer “obtained by polymerizing 50 to

10 Although not mentioned by either party, or the Examiner, EP ’120 appears
to disclose mol% of monomer rather than % by weight as recited in claim 9.
For the purposes of this decision, we treat these descriptions as
interchangeable.
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

21
100 mol % of at least one cationic monomer.” (EP ’120, p. 3, ll. 32-37.)
However, Table 1 in EP ’120 discloses cationic polymers having monomer
compositions that would result in the range of cationic monomer units
recited in claim 9, that is, where the percentage of cationic monomers
acryloyloxyethyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (ABC) and
acryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMQ) is less than 50% of
the combination of cationic monomers and nonionic monomers, namely
acrylic acid (AAc) and acrylamide (AAm). (EP ’120, Table 1, C, D and
a-d.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that EP ’120 discloses cationic polymers having less than 50 mol% by
weight cationic monomer.
Moreover, U.S. Patent No. 5,676,796 (“the ’796 Patent”) cited by
Requester, discloses similar cationic polymers having charge densities of not
more than about 3 meq/g and cationic monomer content of up to 25 mole
percent. (’796 Patent, col. 9, ll. 11-48, Req. App. Br., Ex. 11.)
Thus, we agree with Requester that it would have been obvious to
have used a cationic polymer having the charge densities recited in claims 7
and 55, and less than 50% by weight cationic monomer units as recited in
claim 9, in formulating the cationic polymer in WO ’973, as such variables
were well known desirable variables to one of ordinary skill in the art. To
be clear, we reverse the Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 7, 9, and 55
and we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 7, 9, and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120)
and the’796 Patent.

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

22
Claims 8 and 14
Claim 8 recites that “the water soluble cationic polymer is formed
from water soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer or water soluble
blend of ethylenically unsaturated monomers comprising at least one
cationic monomer.” Claim 14 recites “the water soluble anionic polymer
has been formed from water soluble anionic monomer or blend of water
soluble monomers comprising one or more water soluble anionic
monomers.”
The Examiner stated that there was insufficient evidence to support
the Requester’s position that WO ’973 provides water soluble cationic or
anionic polymers formed as recited in claims 8 and 14. (RAN 16, 25-26.)
Regarding claim 8, Requester contends that WO ’973 discloses that
cationic acrylamide-based polymers are particularly preferred, and because
acrylamide is a neutral water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer, it
would be necessary to copolymerize at least one cationic monomer to
produce the cationic polymers disclosed in WO ’973. (Req. App.
Br. 13-14.) Requester makes a similar argument for claim 14 with respect to
the production of anionic polymers. (Req. App. Br. 14-15.)
Patent Owner does not respond to Requester’s contentions. (See PO
Resp’t Br.)
For claim 8, we appreciate the Examiner’s position that WO ’973 does
not particularly disclose how the cationic acrylamide polymers are produced.
However, even if the cationic polymers disclosed in WO ’973 are not
inherently produced by the methods recited in claims, we are of the view
that it would have been obvious to have produced the cationic acrylamide
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

23
polymers by the methods recited in the claims, as evidenced by EP ’120.
EP ’120 discloses that the cationic polymers are produced by a combination
of ethylenically unsaturated monomers, including at least one cationic
monomer regardless of the polymerization method used. (EP ’120, p. 4,
l. 34 – p. 5, l. 18.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have formulated the cationic acrylamide-based polymers
disclosed in WO ’973 by one of the methods disclosed in claim 8.
We are of a similar view with respect to claim 14. (See EP ’120, p. 7,
ll. 49-58.)
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision not to reject claims
8 and 14. To be clear, we enter a new ground of rejection of claim 8 and 14
as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120).

Claim 18
Claim 18 recites that the cellulosic suspension is substantially free of
filler. The Examiner stated that there was no evidence of record to support
the combination of the references regarding the specific limitations of
claim 18 sufficient for a conclusion of obviousness. (RAN 16.) The
Examiner stated that WO ’973 discloses only processes of making paper
with filler and while the prior art may suggest using less filler, there is no
suggestion to use cellulosic stock substantially free of fillers. (RAN 26-27.)
Requester contends that paper can be made with or without fillers
depending on the desired properties of the paper. (Req. App. Br. 15.)
Requester argues that it would have been obvious to use a suspension that is
free of filler in view of the knowledge at the time of the invention that
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

24
cellulosic suspensions with smaller quantities of filler are easier to
flocculate. (Req. App. Br. 15-16.) Requester argues that EP ’120 provides
evidence that cellulosic suspensions free of filler were used in papermaking,
and that the results of using such a suspension would be predictable in view
of the ’902 Patent, which reflects the general knowledge that flocculating
suspensions with lower amounts of filler is easier. (Req. App. Br. 16.)
Patent Owner contends that WO ’973 is directed to a process for the
production of paper from cellulosic suspensions containing filler. (PO
Resp’t Br. 15.) Patent Owner also argues that the Examples in EP ’120 do
not overcome the deficiency of WO ’973, because those examples relate to
drainage testing and no paper is made from the process. (PO Resp’t Br. 15.)
Patent Owner contends that EP ’120 discloses that paper is made from
cellulosic fibers and fillers. (PO Resp’t Br. 15-16.)
We agree with Requester that whether fillers are used and how much
filler is present in cellulosic suspensions used in paper making is a design
choice that depends on the paper to be produced. There is evidence on this
record to support Requester’s position. Specifically, EP ’893 discloses that
stock and the final paper may be substantially unfilled and that including
filler in the stock is optional. (EP ’893, p. 6, ll. 35-40.) Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 18. In doing so, we add
EP ’893 to the proposed rejection such that claim 18 is rejected under a new
ground as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) and
EP ’893.

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

25
Claims 10 and 26-51
Requester challenged the Examiner’s decision not to adopt the
rejection of claims 10 and 26-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
WO ’691 and EP ’893. However, for the reasons discussed below we enter
a new ground of rejection for claims 10 and 26-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) and U.S.
Patent 5,958,188 (“the ’188 Patent).
Claims 10 and 44
Claim 10 depends from cancelled claim 1 and further recites that the
“water cationic soluble polymer is a branched water soluble polymer which
exhibits a rheological oscillation value of tan 25 delta at 0.005 Hz of above
0.7 (calculated on a 1.5% by weight aqueous solution of the polymer).”
Claim 44 depends from claim 10 and further recites the cationic
polymerization process recited in claim 22.
The Examiner found that EP ’120 does not show that the cationic
soluble polymer has the recited rheological oscillation value, and that neither
the additional evidence cited by Requester, U.S. Patent 5,958,188, nor
EP ’893 shows that the polymers of EP ’120 have the recited rheological
oscillation value. (RAN 7, 18.) Patent Owner agrees with the Examiner,
pointing out that the ’188 Patent discloses rheological oscillation values as
low as 0.5, which is below the range recited in claim 10, such that the recited
range is not necessarily present. (PO Resp’t Br. 17.)
Requester contends that because EP ’120 discloses dissolved branched
ionic polymers, the polymers disclosed therein would inherently possess a
rheological oscillation value of at least 0.7 as recited in claim 10, because
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

26
the ’188 patent discloses that water soluble branched polymers have
rheological oscillation values of above 0.5 and preferably above 0.7. (Req.
App. Br. 17.) Requester contends that the ’188 Patent is directly applicable
to the polymers disclosed in EP ’120, because the polymers of EP ’120
would be in solution when tested. (Req. App. Br. 18.) Requester argues
also that it would have been obvious to have employed polymers having the
recited rheological oscillation value in optimizing the water soluble cationic
polymer, because there is no criticality to the rheological oscillation values
recited in the claims, the water soluble cationic polymers can be prepared by
known methods, and the selection of a suitable cationic polymer is merely an
obvious design choice or optimization. (Req. App. Br. 18.)
EP ’120 discloses that the water soluble ionic polymers produced by
the method disclosed therein are branched polymers or block copolymers,
which is the primary factor in improving retention and/or drainage.
(EP ’120, p. 4, ll. 29-33.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use
branched cationic polymers in WO ’973.
The ’188 Patent discloses that one way to determine that a branched
polymer is in solution is by observing that it has a relatively high tan delta
value, above 0.5 and “preferably above 0.7.” (’188 Patent, col. 4, ll. 27-36.)
Accordingly, we agree with Requester that because EP ’120 discloses that its
polymers are water soluble, the polymers would be expected to have a
“relatively high” rheological oscillation value, as further evidenced by the
’188 Patent. Additionally, we agree with Requester that it would have been
obvious to formulate polymers having the rheological oscillation value
recited in the claims, because it is expressly suggested in the ’188 Patent that
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

27
a tan delta value of above 0.7 is preferred. Patent Owner does not direct our
attention to any criticality of the range recited in the claims.
To the extent that Patent Owner’s argument that EP ’893 teaches
away from the cationic polymer disclosed in EP ’120 by disclosing a
substantially linear cationic polymer (PO Resp’t Br. 17; EP ’893, p. 6,
ll. 49-53) would apply to the ’188 Patent (see col. 9, ll. 41-45), the ’188
Patent is relied on for the teaching of rheological oscillation values for
branched polymers in solution. Moreover, and with particular reference to
claim 44, the ’188 Patent discloses that the cationic polymer is “usually”
linear but alternatively teaches using cationic polymers with cross-linking
(branching) produced by reverse phase emulsion polymerization (water-in-
oil emulsion polymerization).
Accordingly, we enter a new rejection of claims 10 and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120)
and the ’188 Patent.

Claims 26-30
Claims 26-30 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 10,
which in turn depends from cancelled claim 1. Claims 26-30 are all directed
to further limitations related to the siliceous material recited in claim 1. The
Examiner found that because EP ’120 does not show the recited rheological
oscillation value in claim 10, the limitations of claims 26-47 were not met.
(RAN 7, 18.) Requester points out that both EP ’120 discloses bentonite as
a siliceous material, which meets the requirements of claims 26-47. (Req.
App. Br. 19, FN13.)
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

28
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10,
we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) and the ’188
Patent.

Claims 31-36
Requester contends that claims 31-36, are identical to claims 7-9, and
12-14, respectively, with the exception that claims 31-33, 35, and 36 depend
from claim 10 instead of claim 13, or in the case of claim 34, claim 13
instead of claim 1, and thus are not patentable. (Req. App. Br. 19-20.)
The Examiner does not adopt the rejections of these claims based on
the reasons set forth for claim 10, which we reverse above. (RAN 7-8, 18.)
Likewise, Patent Owner relies only on the arguments made with respect to
claim 10. (PO Resp’t Br. 17.)
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 7-9, and 12-14,
we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 30, 32, and 34-36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120)
and the ’188 Patent, and claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120), the ’188 Patent, and
the ’796 Patent.

Claim 40
Claim 40 recites that the cellulosic suspension is substantially free of
filler. As discussed above with respect to claim 18, similarly reciting
cellulosic suspension substantially free of filler, EP ’893 discloses that the
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

29
presence of filler in paper stock is optional. Thus, we enter a new ground of
rejection of claim 40 as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691
(EP ’120), the ’188 Patent, and EP ’893.

Claims 37-39, 41-43, and 45-50
Claims 37-39, 41-47, and 51 are similar to claims 15-17 and 19-25,
and would have been obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120)
and U.S. Patent 5,958,188 (“the ’188 Patent) for the reasons set forth in the
RAN. (See RAN 14-16.)
Claim 48, which recites a rheological oscillation value of tan 25 delta
at 0.005 Hz of above 1.1, would have been obvious for similar reasons as
relied on for claim 10 discussed above. Specifically, as discussed above, the
’188 Patent discloses values of “preferably above 0.7,” which would include
1.1 and above. (Col. 4, ll. 35-36.) As further discussed above, there has
been no showing of criticality for the particular rheological oscillation value.
According, as with claim 10, claim 48 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of WO ’973 in view of EP ’120 and the
’188 Patent.
Claims 49 and 50 recite intrinsic viscosity ranges of at least 4 dl/g to
30 dl/g and at least 4 dl/g to 18 dl/g, respectively. Such recitations would
have been obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Patent
Owner’s appeal.

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

30
Remaining Rejections in Requester’s Appeal
Because we enter the new grounds of rejection above, we find it
unnecessary to reach the further proposed rejection of Claims 7-9, 13, 14,
18, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’691 (EP ’120)
and WO ’973 and the further proposed rejection of Claims 10 and 26-51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’691 and EP ’893.

CONCLUSION

In sum:
We affirm Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-6, 11-13, 15-17,
19-25, and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 and
WO ’691 (EP ’120);
We reverse the Examiner’s decision not to reject Claims 8 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 and WO ’691 (EP ’120);
We enter a new rejection of claims 7, 9, and 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) and the
’796 Patent;
We enter a new rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) and EP ’893;
We enter a new rejection of claims 10 and 26-30, 32, 34-39, and
41-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of
WO ’691 (EP ’120), and the ’188 Patent;
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

31
We enter a new rejection of claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120) the ’188
Patent, and the ’796 Patent;
We enter a new rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over WO ’973 in view of WO ’691 (EP ’120), the ’188 Patent, and
EP ’893.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-6, 11-13, 15-17, 19-25,
and 52-54 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 8 and
14 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 18,
26-51, and 55 under our authority pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a), the above-noted reversal includes a
new ground of rejection. Section 41.77(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.” That section
also provides that Patent Owner, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE
DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options
with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the
appeal proceeding as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file a response
requesting reopening of prosecution before the examiner. Such a
response must be either an amendment of the claims so rejected
or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both.

(2) Request rehearing. The owner may request that
the proceeding be reheard under § 41.79 by the Board
upon the same record. The request for rehearing must
address any new ground of rejection and state with
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

32
particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds
upon which rehearing is sought.

Any request to reopen prosecution before the examiner under 37
C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1) shall be limited in scope to the “claims so rejected.”
Accordingly, a request to reopen prosecution is limited to issues raised by
the new ground(s) of rejection entered by the Board. A request to reopen
prosecution that includes issues other than those raised by the new ground(s)
is unlikely to be granted. Furthermore, should the patent owner seek to
substitute claims, there is a presumption that only one substitute claim would
be needed to replace a cancelled claim.
A requester may file comments in reply to a patent owner response.
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(c). Requester comments under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(c) shall
be limited in scope to the issues raised by the Board’s opinion reflecting its
decision to reject the claims and the patent owner's response under
paragraph 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1). A newly proposed rejection is not
permitted as a matter of right. A newly proposed rejection may be
appropriate if it is presented to address an amendment and/or new evidence
properly submitted by the patent owner, and is presented with a brief
explanation as to why the newly proposed rejection is now necessary and
why it could not have been presented earlier.
Compliance with the page limits pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.943(b), for
all patent owner responses and requester comments, is required.
The examiner, after the Board’s entry of a patent owner response and
requester comments, will issue a determination under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(d)
Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

33
as to whether the Board’s rejection is maintained or has been overcome.
The proceeding will then be returned to the Board together with any
comments and reply submitted by the owner and/or requester under
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(e) for reconsideration and issuance of a new decision by
the Board as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f).
An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141–144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an
inter partes reexamination proceeding “commenced” on or after November
2, 2002 may not be taken “until all parties’ rights to request rehearing have
been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and
appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81. See
also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

Appeal 2015-007695
Reexamination Control 95/002,397
Patent 6,454,902 B1

34
PATENT OWNER:

MEUNIER CARLIN & CURFMAN LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

Mark D. Russett
EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
P.O. Box 55874
Boston, MA 02205