Ex Parte Cisowski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 15, 2019

14403206 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/403,206 11/24/2014 Natacha Cisowski 109 7590 02/20/2019 The Dow Chemical Company P.O. BOX 1967 2040 Dow Center Midland, MI 48641 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 72221-US-PCT 1745 EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERTS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/20/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): FFUIMPC@dow.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NATACHA CISOWSKI and ISABELLE UHL Appeal 2018-003619 Application 14/403,206 Technology Center 1700 Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--14. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 24, 2014 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated June 7, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 7, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated December 22, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed February 21, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Rohm and Haas Company, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3 (unnumbered). 3 Claims 2, 3, and 15 are withdrawn from consideration as drawn to non- elected inventions. Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2016, 2. Appeal 2018-003619 Application 14/403,206 The subject matter on appeal relates to an aqueous adhesive composition, commonly known as a wet glue adhesive. Spec. 1, 11. 2-3. Wet glue adhesives based on alkali-swellable polymers for paper label applications are commonly applied to glass beverage bottles. Id. at 11. 12- 13. The labels must adhere to the bottle when placed in ice water baths yet be readily removable in recycling operations that typically use high temperature and caustic solutions. Id. at 11. 13-16. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. An aqueous adhesive composition, comprising: an emulsion polymer comprising, as copolymerized units, from 10% to 35%, by weight based on the weight of said emulsion polymer, carboxylic acid monomer and further at least one second ethylenically unsaturated monomer; and from 0.1 % to 4%, by weight based on said emulsion polymer dry weight, epoxysilane wherein said adhesive composition is substantially free from crosslinking agent. Appeal Br. 10 (unnumbered) (Claims App.). DISCUSSION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 4--14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Columbus (US 4,032,487, issued June 28, 1977). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. After review of the cited evidence in light of the Appellant and the Examiner's opposing positions, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we 2 Appeal 2018-003619 Application 14/403,206 affirm the rejection for the reasons set forth below, in the Final Office Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. The Examiner finds that Columbus teaches an aqueous adhesive composition that includes a water insoluble polymer (A) comprising from 0.1 to 25 parts by weight of an acid monomer selected from acrylic acid and/or methacrylic acid, and at least 50 parts and up to 99 parts by weight of an acrylate monomer, and (B) up to 5 parts by weight of a silane containing both alkoxy and epoxy functionalities ( an epoxysilane ), such as 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane. Final Act. 3 ( citing Columbus, Abstract); id. at 4 (citing Columbus 7:55). The Examiner also finds that Columbus's range of 0.1 to 25 parts by weight of methacrylic acid overlaps with claim 1 's range of 10% to 35% by weight of a carboxylic acid monomer, and Columbus's range of "up to 5 [parts by weight] of epoxysilane" overlaps with claim 1 's range of O .1 % to 4 % by weight of epoxysilane, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner further finds that Columbus's emulsion polymer does not include any crosslinking agents and the epoxysilane, like Appellant's claim 1, is the only crosslinking agent present thereby satisfying the limitation that the "adhesive composition is substantially free from [a] crosslinking agent." Id. at 4; Spec. 5, 11. 7-10 (defining "substantially free from crosslinking agents" as "substantially free from separate compounds or compositions capable of crosslinking the emulsion polymer," and explaining that the epoxysilane component of the aqueous adhesive composition is expressly excluded from "crosslinking agents"). Appellant argues that Columbus teaches an adhesive composition that achieves an effectively permanent bond between two substrates under 3 Appeal 2018-003619 Application 14/403,206 various conditions, including hot, alkaline conditions, whereas Appellant's adhesive composition achieves an effectively permanent bond between two substrates in an ice water bath, but achieves an effectively impermanent bond between the same two substrates in a hot alkaline bath so that the label may be removed under hot, alkaline conditions. Appeal Br. 7 (unnumbered). Appellant, therefore, argues that one skilled in the art would not find motivation in Columbus to modify his composition that is directed, at least in part, to a contrary end. Id. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error because it focuses on limitations not recited in claim 1. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). As the Examiner explains, there is nothing in Appellant's claims regarding the removability of the aqueous adhesive under alkaline conditions. Ans. 3. Appellant argues that Columbus teaches using substantially lower amounts of acid monomer than those recited claim 1. Appeal Br. 8 (unnumbered). Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error because a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered."). Appellant contends that Columbus teaches that its adhesive composition includes "a small but effective amount to effect crosslinking of the polymer to 5 parts of a silane containing both alkoxy and epoxy functionalities," and further requires certain N-containing groups on the 4 Appeal 2018-003619 Application 14/403,206 polymer that Columbus postulates act as a catalyst to ultimately link this polymer to a silicate substrate. Appeal Br. 8 (unnumbered) (citing Columbus 7:25--43); Reply Br. 2-3 (unnumbered). Based on that teaching, Appellant argues that Columbus's aqueous adhesive composition is not "substantially free from [a] crosslinking agent." Id. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Columbus teaches that the nitrogen groups present in the binder serve to catalyze the reaction between the epoxysilane and the (meth)acrylic acid groups present in the binder polymer. Columbus 7:31-35. Despite Appellant's argument, we are not persuaded Columbus teaches the nitrogen atoms directly take place in any crosslinking. We have carefully considered Appellant's arguments, but find them unpersuasive. Because Appellant has failed to identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4--14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION The rejection of claims 1 and 4--14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Columbus is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5