Ex Parte Rukavina et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2017

11652751 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

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. 11/652,751 01/12/2007 Thomas G. Rukavina 2185A1 3626 7590 03/22/2017 Intellectual Property Department PPG Industries, Inc. One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15272 EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1763 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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 THOMAS G. RUKAVINA and GREGORY J. McCOLLUM Appeal 2014—008002 Application 11/652,751 Technology Center 1700 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2014-008002 Application 11/652,751 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 11 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 1. A method of making a polyurethane material comprising: a) reacting the following components to form a reaction mixture: (1) at least one chain extender; (2) at least one polyether polyol having a molecular weight of approximately 1,000; and (3) at least one aliphatic polyisocyanate wherein the reaction mixture has an OH:NCO ratio that is between 0.89:1 to 0.94:1, and b) curing the reaction mixture by exposing the reaction mixture to ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength between 220 and 450 nm, or heating the reaction mixture to a temperature ranging from 180°F to 290°F. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Chang US 3,878,036 Bravet et al. US 4,784,916 (hereafter “Bravet”) Kozo EP 0 356 027 Al Kovar et al. US 6,894,084 B2 (hereafter “Kovar”) Apr. 15, 1975 Nov. 15, 1988 Feb. 28, 1990 May 17, 2005 THE REJECTIONS2 1. Claims 1—5, 7—8, 12, 14, and 23—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bravet. 1 We use the Corrected Claims Appendix filed on April 11, 2014. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection. Ans. 10. 2 Appeal 2014-008002 Application 11/652,751 2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bravet in view of Kovar. 3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bravet in view of Chang. 4. Claims 9—10, 15—18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bravet in view of Chang and Kozo. 5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bravet in view of Chang and Kozo, and further in view of Kovar. ANALYSIS The issue is whether Bravet would have suggested the claimed ratio of OH:NCO of “between 0.89:1 to 0.94:1”. Bravet teaches: The polyurethane-forming components are present in the reaction mixture such that the molar ratio of the available NCO groups to available OH groups is about 0.8:1 to about 1:1. As the NCO/OH ratio becomes greater than one, for example, about 1.01:1 to about 1.1:1, the sheet becomes more rigid. When the polyurethane forming monomers are all difunctional, the NCO/OH ratio is preferably 0.9:1 to 1:1, and most preferably the ratio is about 1:1. Bravet, col. 4,11. 60-68 (emphasis added). On page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that the portion of Bravet quoted above as teaching that the NCO:OH ratio value can be greater than one—for example, about 1.01:1 to about 1.1:1—and that this teaching equates to an OH:NCO ratio of about 0.99:1 to about 0.90:1, and thus overlaps the claimed range of “between 0.89:1 to 0.94:1”. 3 Appeal 2014-008002 Application 11/652,751 On the other hand, Appellants view the aforementioned disclosure as teaching away because it indicates that when the NCO:OH ratio value becomes greater than one (said another way, that when the OH:NCO value becomes less than one), the sheet becomes more rigid and this is undesirable for making the polyurethane useful in forming the bilayer windshields (“bilayer glazing laminates”) of principal interest to Brevet. Appeal Br. 9— 11; Reply Br. 3—5. The desirable polyurethanes are said to have improved moisture resistance, and to be energy-absorbing, scratch-resistant, and self- healing. Bravet, col. 1,11. 14—19. The polyurethane sheet is used as a component of bilayer safety windshields. Bravet, col. 3,11. 25—28; col. 10, 11. 1-3. We agree with Appellants’ stated position. The general range disclosed in Bravet for the ratio of NCO:OH is from about 0.8:1 to about 1:1, which equates to an OH:NCO range of from about 1.25:1 to about 1:1. Hence, the lowermost limit in Bravet is “about 1:1”. Bravet makes the point that when the value is about 0.99:1 to about 0.90:1, the sheet becomes more rigid. Within this context, Bravet is indicating undesirable properties when the ratio value goes below the lowermost limit of “about 1:1”. Hence, we agree with Appellants that Bravet teaches away from the claimed ratio of OH: NCO of “between 0.89:1 to 0.94:1”. This, taken into consideration with the fact that the Examiner has not come forward with sufficient credible evidence that the undesirable, more rigid, polyurethanes would have been suitable for use in the bilayer glazing laminates described by Bravet, leads us to agree with Appellants. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse Rejections 2—5 because the Examiner does not rely upon the additionally 4 Appeal 2014-008002 Application 11/652,751 applied reference in these other rejections to cure the stated deficiencies of Bravet. DECISION Each rejection is REVERSED. ORDER REVERSED 5