Ex Parte Takeda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2017

12669849 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 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.
12/669,849 01/20/2010 Satoshi Takeda 62760US005 7593
32692 7590 05/03/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
PIERCE, JEREMY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2017 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 SATOSHI TAKEDA1
Appeal 2015-005080
Application 12/669,849
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—6, 8, 11—22, and 24. An oral hearing was held on
April 25, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a sound-absorbing member
comprising an acoustic air flow resistive article. E.g., Spec. 1:4—6; Claim 1.
1 According to the Appellant, the real parties in interest are 3M Company
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) and its affiliate 3M
Innovative Properties Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005080
Application 12/669,849
Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 13 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief (some formatting added):
1. A sound-absorbing member comprising:
a sound-absorbing material having a surface adapted to face a
sound source; and
an acoustic air flow resistive article coupled to the surface of
the sound-absorbing material,
with the acoustic air flow resistive article comprising:
melt blown fibers having a fiber diameter of no greater than
10 pm, the melt blown fibers being formed of a resin having
a first melting point; and
binder fibers dispersed amongst the melt blown fibers,
through the thickness of the acoustic air flow resistive article,
and at least partially melt-adhered to the melt blown fibers,
the surface of the binder fibers being at least partially formed
of a resin having a second melting point that is less than the
first melting point,
wherein the acoustic air flow resistive article has a solidity of at
least 10% and a weight per unit surface area in the range of from
about 50 g/m2 to about 250 g/m2.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1—6 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2005/0026527 Al, published Feb. 3, 2005)
in view of Kazama (US 5,286,929, issued Feb. 15, 1994).
2. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 11—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kazama, further in view of Omiya
(US 2006/0214474 Al, published Sept. 28, 2006).
2
Appeal 2015-005080
Application 12/669,849
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Schmidt discloses many elements of claim 1,
including an acoustic air flow resistive article comprising both melt blown
fibers and binder fibers, but that Schmidt does not disclose, inter alia, that
the binder fibers are dispersed through the thickness of the melt blown
fibers. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds that “Kazama teaches the skilled
artisan that uniform blending of binder fiber throughout the thickness of a
nonwoven insulation material provides the benefit of preventing local
solidification of the binder.” Id. at 3. The Examiner determines that a
person of ordinary skill would have been motivated “to provide binder fibers
in the meltblown layer of Schmidt in a uniform dispersion throughout the
thickness of the fabric in order to prevent local solidification of the binder,
as taught to be known by Kazama.” Id. at 3^4.
That finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As
the Appellant explains, the paragraph of Schmidt on which the Examiner
relies to show binder fibers is principally concerned with bonding between
“[t]he layers of the laminate of the present invention.” See App. Br. 8;
Schmidt 198. To establish that Schmidt discloses binder fibers, the
Examiner relies on the following statement:
Thermal bonding in a through air bonder of the fine fiber
meltblown nonwoven web may be used in applications
especially where the mixture of different fibers employs
polymers having different melting points and/or one or more
polymers miscible with that of the high loft material.
Final Act. 3; Schmidt 198. However, the sentences of Schmidt that
immediately precede and immediately follow that sentence make clear that
Schmidt’s primary focus in that paragraph is on “bonding between the
3
Appeal 2015-005080
Application 12/669,849
layers” and “improving] the strength and durability of the bond points as
well as the integrity of the overall laminate.” Schmidt 198.
Kazama may, in the abstract, suggest that uniform distribution of
binder fibers is useful for certain applications. E.g., Kazama at 3:47—55.
However, the Examiner does not persuasively identify a reason that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to disperse Schmidt’s
binder fibers “through the thickness of’ Schmidt’s melt blown non woven
web, as required by claim 1, given that 198 of Schmidt concerns “bonding
between the layers of the laminate.” See Schmidt 198. In other words,
although Schmidt may suggest the desirability of binder fibers at the
interface of two distinct layers (i.e., the high loft layer and the melt blown
nonwoven web layer), the Examiner does not persuasively explain why it
would have been desirable or obvious to disperse binder fibers through the
thickness of Schmidt’s melt blown nonwoven web. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 1. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires “an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed”).
Claims 2—6, 8, and 11—22 depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1,
and the Examiner’s analysis of those claims does not remedy the error
described above. We likewise cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims.
Independent claim 24 is similar to claim 1 but recites that the “binder
fibers [are] substantially uniformly dispersed amongst the melt blown
fibers.” The Examiner’s analysis of claim 24 is the same as the Examiner’s
analysis of claim 1. See Final Act. 2—\. For reasons set forth above, we are
not persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2015-005080
Application 12/669,849
finding that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
uniformly disperse Schmidt’s binder fiber among Schmidt’s melt blown
nonwoven web. Therefore, we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 24.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8, 11—22, and
24.
REVERSED
5