Harriman, Steven K. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 2019

14820582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2019)

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. 14/820,582 08/07/2015 Steven K. Harriman 21139-USA 2971 31743 7590 12/10/2019 Georgia-Pacific LLC 133 Peachtree Street NE GA030-23 ATLANTA, GA 30303 EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2019 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): gplawpatents@gapac.com koch_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN K. HARRIMAN and ROBERT A. BREYER ____________ Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–22 as unpatentable over at least the primary reference of Krauss (US 4,684,690, pat. Aug. 4, 1987), with claims 14 and 15 being rejected over the combination of Kraus and Elder (US 4,244,846, pat. Jan. 13, 1981). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 2 is representative and reproduced below, along with its parent claim 1: 1. An aldehyde scavenger, comprising: a urea-formaldehyde resin having a formaldehyde to urea molar ratio of about 1.5:1 to about 2.2:1, a sulfite compound, an ammonium salt, free urea, and a liquid medium, wherein: the aldehyde scavenger has a total formaldehyde to total urea molar ratio of about 0.3:1 to about 0.8:1, and the aldehyde scavenger comprises about 0.5 wt% to about 4 wt% of the sulfite compound and about 0.5 wt% to about 4 wt% of the ammonium salt, based on a combined weight of the urea-formaldehyde resin, the sulfite compound, the ammonium salt, the free urea, and the liquid medium. 2. The aldehyde scavenger of claim 1, wherein the aldehyde scavenger has a total formaldehyde to total urea molar ratio of about 0.3:1 to about 0.6:1. At the outset it is noted that Appellant does not present any arguments directed to claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16–19, and 22 (Appeal Br. 9 limits the grounds to be reviewed for only selected claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13–15, 20 and 21). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the §103 rejections as applied to claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16–19, and 22. OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Reply Brief, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections (e.g., generally Ans.). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 3 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the rejection for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claims 2, 13, 20, and 212 It is well established that when claimed ranges overlap, or lie inside ranges of the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.”). Appellant has not disputed that the claimed endpoint of “about 0.6:1” encompasses 0.68:1 as calculated by the Examiner (generally Ans.; Appeal Br.; Reply Br.). However, Appellant contends that the Examiner miscalculated the formaldehyde to urea ratio in Kraus by not including its melamine-formaldehyde resin (Appeal Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 1, 2). The Examiner reasonably points out that the aldehyde scavenger of the claims does not include a melamine formaldehyde component (Ans. 3, 4). The Examiner’s claim interpretation is supported by Appellant’s claim 16 which recite “an aldehyde-based resin” as a component (that may be “a melamine- formaldehyde resin”) that is separate from and, therefore, not a component of the “aldehyde scavenger” (e.g., claim 16; see also, Spec. ¶ 9 (explaining 2 Claim 21 appears to be duplicative of claim 2. Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 4 what may be included in the aldehyde scavenger, and that the scavenger may then be combined with an aldehyde-based resin, or formed in the presence thereof). Appellant does not rely upon any evidence of unexpected results due to the claimed ratio range. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s obviousness determination of the claimed subject matter. We thus affirm the rejection. Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15 Appellant does not present any specific argument directed to Elder, which is used in the rejection of claims 14 and 15. Rather, with respect to claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15, Appellant similarly disputes the Examiner’s calculation as to the solids content of the aldehyde scavenger, stating that the Examiner is impermissibly adding and removing ingredients from Kraus (Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4, 5). This is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection, especially noting that each claim states the aldehyde scavenger solids is based on the combined weight of selected components (e.g., claim 6). The Examiner thus reasonably bases the calculation on these components. Moreover, it is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). “A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.” In re Applied Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 5 Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appellant admits that it is known that the amount of urea affects the undesirable result of releasing formaldehydes in the environment in adhesives for particle board products (Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4). Kraus is directed to an adhesive resin for wood-based materials and likewise recognizes that formaldehyde resins need to minimize released formaldehyde (Kraus, e.g., col. 1, ll. 1–30). The amounts of each component in an adhesive resin varies to provide an appropriate adhesive formula (Kraus, col. 2, ll. 1–13). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness determination of the solids amounts claimed. In light of these circumstances, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, and 13–15. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–13, 16– 22 103 Kraus 1–13, 16– 22 14, 15 103 Kraus, Elder 14, 15 Overall outcome 1–22 Appeal 2019-001322 Application 14/820,582 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). AFFIRMED