Payman Sharifi

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 2019

15024404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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. 15/024,404 03/24/2016 Payman Sharifi 13PLAS0181-US-PCT 8840 102091 7590 11/29/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER RODD, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2019 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAYMAN SHARIFI Appeal 2019-002750 Application 15/024,404 Technology Center 1700 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SABIC GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES B.V. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002750 Application 15/024,404 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A polycarbonate composition, comprising: a polycarbonate polymer formed by a melt process; and a stabilizer comprising bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl) pentaerythritol diphosphite; wherein the composition has a yellowness index (YI) of 3 or less when measured according to ASTM Dl925 at 2.5 mm thickness; a light transmission of 90% or greater when measured according to ASTM Dl003 at 2.5 mm thickness; a melt volume rate of 3 to 56 cc/10 min, when measured according to ASTM Dl238; an endcap percentage of 65% to 90%; and a Fries content of from 200 ppm to 2750 ppm; wherein the Fries content is calculated by measuring a total Fries product content on a mass percentage basis of the polycarbonate by hydrolysis of the polycarbonate, followed by methanolysis, and subsequently, analysis using high- performance liquid chromatography, and a mole ratio of branched to unbranched Fries was measured by nuclear magnetic resonance, and the Fries content was the total Fries products multiplied by the mole ratio; wherein all polycarbonate polymer that is present in the composition was formed by a melt process. Appeal 2019-002750 Application 15/024,404 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Stein US 6,770,693 B2 Aug. 3, 2004 Abad US 7,112,645 B2 Sept. 26, 2006 Cojocariu US 2009/0326116 A1 Dec. 31, 2009 Goossens US 2010/0137500 A1 June 3, 2010 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cojocariu in view of Goossens, Stein, and Abad. 2. Claims 2, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cojocariu in view of Goossens and Stein. OPINION We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action2 and Answer. We merely add that we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3–6) that Appellant’s arguments do not adequately address squarely what the combined teachings of the applied art reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have 2 The Final Office Action refers to the “rejections of record” set forth in the non-Final Office Action mailed August 11, 2017. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-002750 Application 15/024,404 4 suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6–9) that Appellant has not adequately addressed the merits of the rejections as presented by the Examiner in the record. For example, on page 13 of the Answer, the Examiner states that an inherency theory was not used to reject the claimed Fries content. The Examiner states that Abad was used for this, whereby Abad teaches a Fries content that overlaps the recited range. Ans. 14. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–17, 19, 20 103 Cojocariu, Goossens, Stein, Abad 1–17, 19, 20 2, 16, 17, 19 103 Cojocariu, Goossens, Stein 2, 16, 17, 19 Overall Outcome 1–17, 19, 20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED