Ex Parte Poruthoor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 2014

11724054 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2014)

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. 11/724,054 03/14/2007 Simon Poruthoor KCX-1301 (64129923US01) 2857 22827 7590 08/26/2014 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER HORNING, JOEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2014 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 SIMON PORUTHOOR, LISA SANABRIA, ALI YAHIAOUI, KELLY BRANHAM, HUE SCOTT SNOWDEN, and OLESYA SUKHAREVA1 ____________ Appeal 2013-000540 Application 11/724,054 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 30-33, 35-38, and 41-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated Oct. 20, 2011. Id. at 2. Appeal 2013-000540 Application 11/724,054 2 We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method of printing using an ink composition. Abstract. The ink composition used includes a relatively high amount of crosslinking agent that, inter alia, dramatically increases the oil crockfastness. Spec. 19, ll. 23-24. Independent claim 30, the sole independent claim, is directed to a method of ink jet printing using an ink composition comprising, inter alia, about 5% to about 20% by wet weight crosslinking agent wherein, upon drying, the ink composition comprises more than about 25% by weight a crosslinking agent. Claim 30 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 30. A method of printing on a visible surface of a nonwoven web of synthetic fibers, the method comprising: providing an ink composition comprising a fugitive alkali, an adhesion promoter, and a crosslinking agent in an amount of about 5% by weight to about 20% by weight based on the wet weight of the ink composition, wherein the ink composition has a pH kept above 8 by the fugitive alkali, and wherein the crosslinking agent comprises an aziridine oligomer with at least two aziridine functional groups; and ink jet printing the ink composition on the visible surface of the nonwoven web, wherein upon printing the ink composition, the fugitive alkali evaporates to decrease the pH of the printed ink composition to trigger the action of the crosslinking agent, and wherein upon drying the ink composition comprises greater than about 25% by weight of the crosslinking agent based on the dried weight of the ink composition and about 10% to Appeal 2013-000540 Application 11/724,054 3 about 50% by weight of the adhesion promoter based on the dried weight of the ink composition. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Levy US 5,853,859 Dec. 29, 1998 Matzinger US 6,020,397 Feb. 1, 2000 Nair US 2003/0207091 A1 Nov. 6, 2003 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner rejects claims 30-33, 35-38, and 41-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: Claims 30-33, 35-38 and 41-47 over Levy as evidenced by or in view of Nair. Ans. 5-15; Final Action 2-7.3 Claims 48 and 49 over Levy in view of Matzinger. Id. at 7-8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of the claims in light of arguments advanced by the Appellants in their Appeal Brief, and are persuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in concluding the claims are unpatentable for obviousness. We limit our discussion to independent claim 30.4, 5 Appellants argue Levy teaches using only up to about 10% by dry weight of crosslinker, 3 The Examiner relied on the combination of Levy and Nair in rejecting the subject matter of claims 38 and 41. The Examiner erroneously referred to cancelled claim 21 in the statement of the rejection. Final Action 5. Appeal 2013-000540 Application 11/724,054 4 which is substantially less than the amount required by independent claim 30 (greater than about 25% by weight based on the dried weight of the ink composition). App.Br. 6-8. The Examiner finds Levy teaches an exemplary amount of up to about 10% by dry weight, but also finds Levy teaches using more crosslinker. Ans. 3 (citing Levy, col. 6, ll. 31-32; “More . . . cure promoter [crosslinker] could be used, but to little if any effect and at increased cost.”). The Examiner further finds the amount of crosslinker does not support patentability because the amount of cross-linker was a result effective variable and Appellants have not presented evidence establishing the claimed amount is critical. (Final Action 3; Ans. 3-4). We find the Examiner erred in concluding Levy teaches or suggests using crosslinker in the amount claimed, greater than about 25% by dry weight, and that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of crosslinker. Levy’s disclosure of about 1 to about 10 parts by dry weight and the statement that little effect would result from using more is insufficient to establish obviousness. The Examiner has not directed us to evidence to support increasing Levy’s amount of crosslinker by at least about 2.5 fold to arrive at the claimed amount. We also find the Examiner erred in concluding the amount of crosslinker was a “result effective variable. The Examiner has not identified a property would have been effected by varying the amount of crosslinker. 4 Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 30, 2012) and the Answer (mailed July 5, 2012) for the respective details. 5 The Examiner cites Nair as evidence that polyolefins are synthetic fibers. Final Action 2. The Examiner also cites Nair and Matzinger to address the subject matter of the dependent claims. Appeal 2013-000540 Application 11/724,054 5 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-33, 35- 38 and 41-47 for obviousness over Levy as evidenced by or in view of Nair and the rejection of claims 48 and 49 for obviousness over Levy in view of Matzinger. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 30-33, 35-38, and 41-49 for obviousness is REVERSED. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). REVERSED tc