Ex Parte Nesmith et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 17, 201714369302 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/369,302 06/27/2014 Gene B. Nesmith 67802US006 1272 32692 7590 08/21/2017 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PO BOX 33427 ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427 EXAMINER LA VILLA, MICHAEL EUGENE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1784 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/21/2017 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): LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GENE B. NESMITH and STEVEN Y. YU Appeal 2017-003203 Application 14/369,302 Technology Center 1700 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 16—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 27, 2014; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 20, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated January 20, 2016; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated June 29, 2016. 2 Appellants identify 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company as the real parties in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-003203 Application 14/369,302 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to metal-coated fluoroelastomer materials. Spec. 1. Claim 1—the sole independent claim on appeal—is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Appeal Brief below: 1. A metalized fluoroelastomer material comprising: a) a fluoroelastomer material, bearing b) a layer of titanium metal in direct contact with the fluoroelastomer, and thereupon c) a first metal overlayer in direct contact with the layer of titanium metal, wherein the first metal overlayer comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of copper, noble metals and combinations thereof; and d) a metal top layer in direct contact with the first metal overlayer, the metal top layer having a thickness of at least 2 microns. REJECTION The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:3 Claims 1—6 and 16—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gibbons4 and Jing.5 OPINION Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Br. 4—5. We limit our discussion to representative claim 1, and decide the propriety of the rejection based on the representative claim alone. Claims 2—6 and 16—22 stand or fall with claim 1. 3 Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 2—5. 4 US 5,589,280, issued December 31, 1996 (“Gibbons”). 5 US 7,235,302 B2, issued June 26, 2007 (“Jing”). 2 Appeal 2017-003203 Application 14/369,302 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Gibbons discloses a metal-coated polymer material in which the metal-coating includes a first titanium layer, a subsequent functional metal layer, and one or more additional metal overcoat layers. Compare Final Act. 3^4 with Br. 4—5. Gibbons identifies copper as a preferred functional metal layer, wherein the functional metal layer provides a functional property, e.g., an optical, electrical, or physical-chemical property. Gibbons 5:42—45. The one or more additional metal overcoat layers are provided “to improve chemical inertness, to enhance corrosion resistance, to provide physical robustness, or to improve handleability of [the] film.” Id. 7:64—67. Appellants’ argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Gibbons’ disclosed overcoat thickness of up to 10,000 angstroms (1 micron) and the recited thickness of “at least 2 microns” each may be interpreted as encompassing approximately 1.5 microns, Br. 4—5, which the Examiner bases solely on “conventional rounding and significant figures,” Final Act. 4. This argument is well-taken. The Examiner provides no evidentiary basis for these interpretations. However, the Examiner presents two additional alternative bases to support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to provide Gibbons’ overcoat at a thickness of at least 2 microns. First, the Examiner finds that providing a thicker single-layer overcoat would “improve inertness or robustness, etc.” Final Act. 5. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that providing multiple overcoat layers, each having a thickness up to 10,000 angstroms, also would improve inertness or robustness and would yield an overall overcoat thickness of at least two microns. Id. See Gibbons 8:2—6 (“The additional layers may consist of one 3 Appeal 2017-003203 Application 14/369,302 o o or more relatively thin (i.e., less than 10,000 A in thickness with 20 to 250 A being typical) sputter-deposited materials which function to improve chemical inertness or improve handleability of the film.”) (emphasis added). Appellants present no argument directed to either of the above-noted alternative bases identified in the Examiner’s statement of the rejection. Nor do Appellants reply to the Examiner’s identification of Appellants’ omission. See Ans. 5 (“[Ajppellant’s [sic] traversal only specifically addresses the first of the three obviousness rationales for this claimed feature.”). Absent any argument against these alternative findings, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection as to all claims on appeal. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 16—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation