Ex Parte Paul et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13990137 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/990,137 05/29/2013 Mou Paul
109 7590 11/01/2016
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.
70769-US-PCT 1738
EXAMINER
ROLLAND, ALEX A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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 MOU PAUL, STEVEN D. JONS, JOSEPH D. KOOB,
XIAOHUA SAM QIU, STEVEN ROSENBERG, and ABHISHEK ROY
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990,137
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and
5-10. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An
oral hearing was held on October 18, 2016.
We AFFIRM.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from, mailed
June 26, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief dated July 1, 2014 ("App.
Br."), the Examiner's Answer to the Appeal Brief dated September 4, 2014
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief dated September 9, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify "The Dow Chemical Company and its affiliates,
FilmTec Corporation and Global Technologies LLC" as the Real Party in
Interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 13 7
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' disclosure relates to a method for making a composite
polyamide membrane comprising the steps of applying a polyfunctional
amine monomer and acyl halide monomer to a surface of a porous support
and interfacially polymerizing the monomers to form a thin film polyamide
layer. Abstract; Spec. 1, 2. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief
(App. Br. 10):
1. A method for making a composite polyamide membrane
comprising a porous support and a thin film polyamide layer,
wherein the method comprises the step of applying a
polyfunctional amine monomer and polyfunctional acyl halide
monomer to a surface of the porous support and interfacially
polymerizing the monomers to form a thin film polyamide layer,
wherein the method is characterized by including at least one of
the following steps:
i) conducting the interfacial polymerization in the presence
of a first subject monomer comprising an aromatic moiety
substituted with a single carboxylic acid functional group or salt
thereof and a single amine-reactive functional group selected
from: acyl halide, anhydride, isocyanate and epoxy, and
ii) applying a first subject monomer comprising an aromatic
moiety substituted with a single carboxylic acid functional group
or salt thereof and a single amine-reactive functional group
selected from: acyl halide, anhydride, isocyanate and epoxy, to
the thin film polyamide layer.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Cadotte US 4,277,344
Linder et al., US 4,767,645
(hereinafter "Linder")
2
July 7, 1981
Aug.30, 1988
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
Hartman et al., US 5,180,802
(hereinafter "Hartman")
Murakami et al., US 6,406,626 B 1
(hereinafter "Murakami")
The Rejections
Jan. 19, 1993
June 18, 2002
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of
Hartman. Final Act. 3-5.
2. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Cadotte. Final
Act. 5-7.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Cadotte in further view of
Linder. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, including Appellants' argument
at the oral hearing, 3 we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and Final Office Action appealed
from, which we adopt as our own. Nevertheless, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3 An Appellant may only rely on, and we only consider, argument that has
been relied upon in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47(e)(l).
3
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7. In response to this rejection, Appellants do not
present arguments for the separate patentability of claims 1, 3, and 5-7. We
select claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 3 and 5-7 stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Murakami and
Hartman suggests a method for making a composite polyamide membrane
satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and would have rendered claim 1
obvious. Final Act. 3, 4. The Examiner finds that Murakami discloses or
suggests the majority of claim 1 's limitations, but that the reference "does
not explicitly recite the claimed structure of the subject[] monomer." Id.
(citing Murakami, Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-33, col, 7, 11.
32-39, 52-59, col. 8, 11. 50-54). The Examiner, however, relies on Hartman
for disclosing this limitation. Id. at 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Hartman teaches "a method for manufacturing polyamide compositions
comprising trimellitic anhydride as a substitute for the acid halide." Id.
(citations omitted) (citing Hartman, Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26). The
Examiner finds further that the "trimellitic anhydride" Hartman discloses
reads on the anhydride functional group recited in claim 1. Id.
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made "to practice the method of Murakami and substitute the
polyfunctional acid anhydride halide with the polyfunctional acid anhydride
trimellitic anhydride because Hartman teaches that these compositions are
substitutable for the purpose of producing a polyamide." Final Act. 4.
4
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed
because the claimed invention is directed to "a different polyamide structure
that is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references." App. Br. 3.
Appellants further argue that "Hartman represents non-analogous art." Id. at
5. In particular, Appellants argue that Hartman is "outside the field of semi-
permeable membranes (applicant's endeavor)" and "fails to address
improvements of either membrane flux or salt passage (the problem
addressed by applicant's invention)." Id. Appellants also argue that the
Examiner's rationale for combining Murakami and Hartman is "deficient"
because it "fails to account for the context of Hartman's teaching and its
inapplicability to interfacially polymerized membranes as described in
Murakami" and does not "provide a proper motive or reasonable expectation
of success" in combining the references' teachings. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we do
not find Appellants' argument (App. Br. 3) that the claimed invention is
directed to a different polyamide structure that is neither disclosed nor
suggested by the cited references persuasive because it attacks the references
individually rather than the collective teachings of the prior art as a whole.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants' argument focuses
primarily on what Appellants contend Murakami and Hartman each teach or
suggest individually, and not the combined teachings of the references as a
whole and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
5
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
Moreover, based on the record before us and the combined teachings
of the cited references as a whole, the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Murakami and Hartman suggests all of claim 1 's limitations,
including the claimed polyamide structure, is supported by a preponderance
of the evidence and based on sound technical reasoning. Murakami,
Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-33, col, 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8,
11. 50-54; Hartman, Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26.
As the Examiner found (Final Act. 3, 4), Murakami teaches a method
of forming a crosslinked polyamide ultra-thin membrane layer by the
reaction between an aqueous solution containing a polyfunctional amine and
an organic solvent solution containing polyfunctional acid halide together
with polyfunctional acid anhydride halide, and that the polyfunctional acid
anhydride is present during interfacial polycondensation. Murakami,
Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-33, col. 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8,
11. 50-54. As the Examiner further found (Final Act 4), Hartman teaches a
method for manufacturing polyamide compositions comprising trimellitic
anhydride as a substitute for the acid halide, reads on the anhydride
functional group recited in claim 1. Hartman, Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26.
Appellants' arguments expose no reversible error in the Examiner's analysis
and factual findings in this regard.
On the record before us, we are also persuaded that the Examiner has
provided a reasoned basis and identified sufficient evidence to evince why
one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Murakami and
Hartman to arrive at Appellants' claimed invention. Final Act. 4 (explaining
that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the
polyfunctional acid anhydride halide in Murakami's method with Hartman's
6
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
polyfunctional acid anhydride trimellitic anhydride because Hartman teaches
that these compositions are substitutable for the purpose of producing a
polyamide ); see also Hartman, col. 6, 11. 23-26. Appellants do not direct us
to sufficient evidence or provide a persuasive technical explanation as to
why the Examiner's articulated reasoning for combining the teachings of the
prior art to arrive at the claimed invention lacks a rational underpinning or is
otherwise based on some reversible error.
Appellants' argument that Hartman represents non-analogous art is
unpersuasive because it too narrowly characterizes the scope of Hartman's
disclosures, including the applicable field of endeavor and pertinence of the
problems addressed to the problem in which the claimed invention is
involved. See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the
Examiner points out (Final Act. 2, 3), the need or problem addressed by
Hartman relates to selecting the components to form a polyamide, including
"alkyl- or aryl-terminated polyamide compositions and polyamide
rheological additives" and Hartman specifically discloses a method for
forming a polyamide, which includes use of the claimed polyfunctional
anhydride, "trimellitic anhydride." Hartman, Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26,
claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
reasoning for combining Murakami and Hartman is "deficient" because it
fails to account for the "context of Hartman's teaching" and does not
provide "a proper motive or reasonable expectation of success." The
Supreme Court has explained that any need or problem known in the art can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed and
Appellants' disagreement with the Examiner's reason for combining the
7
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
references, without more, is insufficient to establish reversible error in this
regard. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Moreover, as discussed above, we find that the Examiner's analysis
and factual findings in this regard are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and based on sound technical reasoning. In particular, based on the
record evidence, we agree with the Examiner's reasoning and findings
provided at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer explaining why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success
substituting Murakami' s acid anhydride halide with Hartman's trimellitic
anhydride. Murakami, col. 4, 11. 14--20, 30-33, col. 8, 11. 50-54; Hartman,
Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26. Appellants' argument reveals no reversible error
in the Examiner's analysis and factual findings in this regard.
We do not find Appellants' argument that "[u]nder Murakami's
reaction conditions, Hartman's teaching of 'equivalent' monomers is invalid
as carboxylic acid groups are substantially unreactive with amines" (App.
Br. 5) persuasive because Appellants do not provide an adequate technical
explanation or sufficient discussion in the appeal briefing to support it.
Appellants' assertions that "[t]his point is particularly clarified in applicant's
previously filed declaration and is further supported by excerpts of
Murakami (see col. 5, line 61---63) and col. 8, lines 43--45 of US 4277344
(Cadotte)" (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3) and extensive attorney argument
regarding the declaration at the oral hearing, 4 without more, are insufficient
4 Appellants failed to explain or offer any reason why the extensive attorney
argument made at the oral hearing regarding the declaration was not timely
raised in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. We, therefore, decline
to consider it at this juncture. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
8
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's findings in this regard.
In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 2. Appellants present a separate argument for the patentability
of dependent claim 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation
"wherein the amine-reactive functional group of the first subject monomer
present in steps i) or ii) is an acyl halide." App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Murakami and Hartman
suggests all of claim 2 's limitations and would have rendered claim 2
obvious. Final Act. 3-5 (citing Murakami, Abstract, col. 1, 11. 44--51, col. 2,
1. 62, col. 3, 11. 40-57, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-33, col, 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8,
11. 50-54; Hartman, Abstract, col. 6, 11. 23-26). In particular, the Examiner
finds that Murakami teaches that: ( 1) "the polyfunctional acid halide can be
used alone"; (2) "[ s ]uch a polyfunctional acid halide is a benzene ring with
two or more halocarbonyl groups (acyl halide) per molecule"; and that the
(3) claimed "subject monomer may exclude the acid anhydride in favor of an
acyl halide." Id. at 5 (citing Murakami, col. 1, 11. 44--51, col. 3, 11. 40-57).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 should be
reversed because: (1) "Murakami fails to describe equivalency between an
anhydride group ... and an acid halide group"; (2) "Murakami would seem
to teach away from the Examiner's proposed substitution by expressly
requiring two amine-reactive (acid halide) groups rather than one"; (3) "the
Examiner has failed to provide any motivation for modifying Murakami's
acid anhydride halide monomer in such a manner"; and ( 4) the "comparative
examples provided in the subject application show an unexpected
improvement in membrane salt passage when the subject monomers are used
9
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
as compared with similar monomers including two amine-reactive groups."
App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 2 largely for the same reasons discussed above for
claim 1. In particular, Appellants' argument that Murakami fails to describe
equivalency between an anhydride group and an acid halide group is
unpersuasive because, as the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 4),
Murakami broadly teaches a number of functional groups attached to a
benzene ring, including acid anhydride, acyl halide, and carboxyl functional
groups, that react with a polyfunctional amine to form a polyamide, and
which the Examiner finds are interchangeable in the context of forming a
polyamide. Murakami, col. 3, 11. 40-67, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-33, col. 8, 11. 50-
54. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Murakami also specifically
discloses a polyfunctional acid halide, which excludes acid anhydride in
favor of acyl halide, successfully reacting with the polyfunctional amine to
form a polyamide. Murakami, col. 4, 11. 14-21.
Appellants' teaching away argument is unpersuasive because
Appellants do not identify sufficient evidence to support it, and we will not
read into the references a teaching away where no such language exists. Cf
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). In particular, Appellants' assertion that Murakami would seem
to teach away from the Examiner's proposed substitution (App. Br. 7),
without more, is insufficient to establish that the references teach away from
the claimed invention or adequately rebut the Examiner's analysis and
findings in this regard. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). We find that Appellants do not identify any teaching in Murakami or
10
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
in Hartman which discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from
combining their teachings to arrive at the claimed invention as found by the
Examiner. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (finding that there is no
teaching away where the prior art's disclosure "does not criticize, discredit,
or otherwise discourage the solution claimed").
Appellants' contention that comparative examples in the Specification
show an unexpected improvement in membrane salt passage (App. Br. 7) is
equally unpersuasive because Appellants do not identify sufficient evidence
or provide an adequate technical explanation to support it, including any
basis for the proposition that the results, improved or not, were unexpected,
or that the comparative results provided are commensurate with the scope of
the claims (generally App. Br.; Reply Br.). De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705; see
also In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) ("the burden of
showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them"); cf also Ex parte
Ishizaka, No. 91-2539, 1992 WL 336794, at *4 (BPAI Apr. 30, 1992)
(stressing that "appellants have the burden of explaining the ... evidence of
non-obviousness" upon which they rely).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-
7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Murakami and Hartman.
Rejection 2
Appellants argue claims 8 and 9 as a group. We select claim 8 as
representative and claim 9 stands or fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 8 is similar to claim 1, but more narrowly limits the
"first subject monomer" in reciting the steps:
11
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
i) conducting the interfacial polymerization in the
presence of a first subject monomer selected from at least one
of: 3-carboxybenzoyl chloride and 4-carboxybenzoyl chloride,
and
ii) applying a first subject monomer selected from at least
one of: 3-carboxybenzoyl chloride and 4-carboxybenzoyl
chloride, to the thin film polyamide layer.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Murakami and Cadotte
suggests all of claim 8 's limitations and would have rendered claim 8
obvious. Final Act. 5-7 (citing Murakami, Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4,
11. 1-21, 30-44, col. 5, 11. 57----66, col, 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8, 11. 50-54;
Cadotte, Abstract, col. 8, 11. 38--45). In particular, the Examiner finds that
although Murakami "does not explicitly recite the claimed structure of the
subject[] monomer," it does disclose that "the polyfunctional acid anhydride
is used together with the polyfunctional acid halide at particular ratios to
form the polyamide membrane." Id. at 6 (citing Murakami, col. 4, 11. 34--
44 ). The Examiner further finds that Cadotte teaches "a method for forming
a polyamide membrane from a polyamine and polyacyl halide wherein it is
taught that carboxylic acid anhydride functional groups react slowly with
amines and carboxylic acid functional groups also react slowly with
amines." Id. (citation omitted) (citing Cadotte, Abstract, col. 8, 11. 3 8--45).
Based on the Examiner's findings regarding Murakami's and
Cadotte' s combined teachings, the Examiner concludes that "it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to substitute the slow reacting carboxylic acid anhydride functional
group with a carboxylic acid functional group because Cadotte teaches that
they are equivalents in terms of slowly reacting with amines." Final Act. 6.
12
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because
"Cadotte teaches away from the use of either carboxylic acid anhydride or
carboxylic acid functional groups" and because neither Cadotte nor
Murakami "suggests the use of the subject monomer including a single
carboxylic acid group and a single amine-reactive group selected from acyl
halide (e.g. 3-carboxybenzoyl chloride and 4-carboxybenzoyl chloride),
isocyanate and epoxy," as claimed. App. Br. 8.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Based on the
record before us, the Examiner's findings regarding Murakami's and
Cadotte' s teachings and rationale for why one of ordinary skill would have
combined these teachings to arrive at Appellants' claimed invention are
supported by a preponderance of evidence and based on sound technical
reasoning. Murakami, Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-44, col. 5,
11. 57-66, col, 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8, 11. 50-54; Cadotte, Abstract, col. 8,
11. 38--45.
Appellants' contentions that "neither Cadotte nor Murakami suggests
the use of the subject monomer" and that the Examiner's proposed rationale
for combining the references "defeats the purpose of Murakami's objective
of improving upon Cadotte' s fundamental reaction by addition [of] a unique
third monomer" (App. Br. 8), without more, are conclusory and insufficient
to establish reversible error in the Examiner's analysis and factual findings
in this regard. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that Cadotte teaches away
from the use of either carboxylic acid anhydride or carboxylic acid
functional groups (App. Br. 8). As the Examiner found (Ans. 4), Cadotte
actually teaches that in the context of forming a polyamide membrane by
13
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
interfacial polymerization carboxylic acid anhydride groups and carboxylic
acid groups react slowly-not that they do not react at all, as Appellants'
argument suggests. Cadotte, Abstract, col. 8, 11. 3 8--45. Moreover, as the
Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 5) the fact that Cadotte teaches that
carboxylic acid anhydride groups and carboxylic acid groups are slow
reacting, without more, is insufficient to establish that the references teaches
away from combining Cadotte' s teachings with Murakami' s teachings to
arrive at the claimed invention as found by the Examiner. Fulton, 391 F.3d
at 1201.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Murakami and Cadotte.
Rejection 3
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites the following additional
limitation: "\x1herein the amine-reactive functional group of the first subject
monomer present in steps i) or ii) is selected from: isocyanate and epoxy."
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Murakami, Cadotte, and
Linder suggests all of claim 10 's limitations and would have rendered claim
10 obvious. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that the combination of
Murakami and Cadotte as previously discussed above with respect to claim 8
suggests all of claim 10' s limitations, but that it does not "teach an
isocyanate group." Id. The Examiner, however, relies on Linder for
teaching this missing limitation. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Linder teaches a method for forming a membrane through interfacial
polymerization of an amine and a cross-linking agent "wherein the
14
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
crosslinking agent has at least two functional groups selected from
isocyanates and carboxylic acid halides." Id. (citing Linder, Abstract, col. 2,
11. 14--17, col. 5, 11. 61-62, col. 11, 11. 3-12).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made "to practice the method of Murakami and Cadotte and substitute a
carboxylic acid halide functional groups with an isocyanate functional group
because Linder teaches that they are substitutable for the purpose of reacting
with an amine." Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because
"Linder's teaching is not predictably applicable within the context of
Cadotte or Murakami's approach" and the "Examiner's mere assertions that
Linder's teaching of substitutable functional groups for a crosslinking agent
fail to provide the required factual basis to support the rejection." App. Br.
9.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because they do not
identify sufficient evidence or provide an adequate technical explanation to
support them. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. These arguments also fail to
"take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ" in overcoming difficulties in combining the
teachings of the cited references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appellants also
misconstrue Linder's teachings. As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans.
5), Linder suggests the use of isocyanate functional groups as an alternative
to carboxylic acid halides (i.e., acyl halides) for reacting with an amine and
generally demonstrates that isocyanate groups show reactivity to amines in
the same way as carboxylic acids halides, regardless of whether the amine is
15
Appeal2014-009668
Application 13/990, 137
in monomeric or polymeric form. See Linder, col. 11, 11. 3-12. Appellants'
arguments expose no reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings in
this regard.
Moreover, based on the record before us, the Examiner's findings
regarding Murakami's, Cadotte's, and Linder's teachings, and the stated
reasoning for why one of ordinary skill would have combined these
teachings to arrive at Appellants' claimed invention, are supported by a
preponderance of evidence and based on sound technical reasoning.
Murakami, Abstract, col. 2, 1. 62, col. 4, 11. 1-21, 30-44, col. 5, 11. 57----66,
col, 7, 11. 32-39, 52-59, col. 8, 11. 50-54; Cadotte, Abstract, col. 8, 11. 38--45;
Linder, Abstract, col. 2, 11. 14--17, col. 5, 11. 61----62, col. 11, 11. 3-12.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Murakami, Cadotte, and Linder.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-10 are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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
16