Ex Parte Maziers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2012

10553572 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 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.
10/553,572 10/23/2006 Eric Maziers F-872 (31223.00098) 1582
25264 7590 11/14/2012
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
EXAMINER
LOPEZ, RICARDO E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2012 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 ERIC MAZIERS and VINCENT STEPHENNE
____________

Appeal 2011-010399
Application 10/553,572
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The named inventors (collectively “Appellant”) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 9-15 directed to monofilaments or
stretched tape. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
9. Monofilaments or stretched tapes, unwoven or woven into
raffia prepared from long chain branched metallocene-produced
polyethylene resin.

Appeal 2011-010399
Application 10/553,572

2
The Examiner relies on the following evidence of unpatentability:

Lai US 5,278,272 Jan. 11, 1994
Erderly US 5,451,450 Sept. 19, 1995
Kimura US 5,861,202 Jan. 19, 1999

THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of three grounds of rejection: Claims 9-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lai; claims 9-12 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lai; and claims 13
and 15 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lai and
Erderly. App. Br. 2.1

ISSUE
The following dispositive issue arises: Does the Examiner err in
finding that Lai describes a “long chain branched metallocene-produced
polyethylene resin” as specified in claim 9? We answer this question in the
negative and AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS
Appellant raises the same argument for each rejection, thus our
analysis of the first rejection is dispositive of all issues raised in this appeal.
App. Br. 3-4. Regarding the first rejection, Appellant argues claims 9-10 as
a group. Id. at 3. We select claim 9 as representative of the group.
Claims 10-15 stand or fall with claim 9. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

1 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 29, 2011 (“Ans.”) and
the Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2011 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2011-010399
Application 10/553,572

3
In Appellant’s view, Lai does not describe a “long chain branched
metallocene-produced polyethylene resin” as specified in claim 9. App.
Br. 3. The Examiner agrees that “[t]he materials taught by Lai [] are
‘substantially linear,” but points out that Lai defines “substantially linear” to
mean that “the polymer backbone is substituted with about 0.01 long chain
branches/1000 carbons to about 3 long chain branches/1000 carbons.”
Ans. 4-5 (citing Lai Abstract and 3:58-64). On that basis, the Examiner
finds that Lai’s materials “do have a small amount of ‘long chain
branching,’” id. at 5, and thus meet the claim 9 limitation that requires “long
chain branched metallocene-produced polyethylene resin.”
Appellant acknowledges “that Lai teaches that substantially linear
polymers may include a limited number of long chain branches,” but
contends that Lai’s materials fall outside the scope of the “long chain
branched metallocene-produced polyethylene resin” limitation of claim 9
because the claim specifies “long chain branched polyethylene, not
substantially linear polyethylene containing very few long chain branches.”
App. Br. 3.
The Examiner responds that, where “Appellant has not set forth a
degree of branching” in claim 9, the broadest reasonable construction of the
claim term “long chain branched metallocene-produced polyethylene resin”
is broad enough to include Lai’s materials, which admittedly have some
quantity of “long chain branched” material. Ans. 10; App. Br. 3.
Significantly, Appellant directs us to no disclosure in the Specification, or
any other objective evidence, that would support a narrower construction of
the “long chain branched metallocene-produced polyethylene resin”
limitation of claim 9. App. Br. 3. On this record, the evidence supports the
Appeal 2011-010399
Application 10/553,572

4
Examiner’s view that the “long chain branched metallocene-produced
polyethylene resin” limitation of claim 9 is broad enough to encompass Lai’s
materials. See Ans. 4-6 and 9-10.
No persuasive argument or evidence having been brought forward by
Appellant, we affirm the rejection of claims 9-15.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejection of claims 9-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED

tc