Ex Parte Khabashesku

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 22, 2012

12256258 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/256,258 10/22/2008 Olga Khabashesku COS-1128 4851 25264 7590 10/22/2012 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC PO BOX 674412 HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412 EXAMINER LENIHAN, JEFFREY S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1765 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2012 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 ____________________ Ex parte OLGA KHABASHESKU ____________________ Appeal 2011-005846 Application 12/256,258 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11 and 13-26. The Examiner reproduces the rejections on pages 4-8 of the Answer. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant’s claims are directed to a method of contacting at least one conventional elastomer, such as polybutadiene, at least one singlet oxygen functionalized elastomer (SOFE), such as hydroperoxidized polybutadiene, and a styrene monomer in a reaction zone to form a styrenic polymer composition (see, e.g., claims 1 and 23). Appellant also claims a reactor Appeal 2011-005846 Application 12/256,258 2 blended polymer produced from those constituents (see claim 24). All of the independent claims state that the ratio of conventional elastomer to SOFE “comprises from 1:5 to 5:1.” There is no dispute that Peng, as found by the Examiner, teaches contacting polybutadiene, hydroperoxidized polybutadiene, and styrene in the manner claimed (Compare Ans. 4 with Br. 10-12). The sole question on appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the two elastomers in the claimed ratio? Appellant’s sole argument is that Peng did not recognize that the ratio of the two elastomers was a result effective variable that achieves a recognized result (Br. 11-12). However, for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Answer, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings made in response to this argument (Ans. 8- 9). Appellant has not addressed the findings made in the Examiner’s response (no reply brief was filed). A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. DECISION For the well stated reasons of the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Appeal 2011-005846 Application 12/256,258 3 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)(1). AFFIRMED cam