Phillip Hustad et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2020006346 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 13/397,470 02/15/2012 Phillip Dene Hustad 72336-US-NP (DPN30002US) 1803 158376 7590 03/01/2022 Cantor Colburn LLP - DuPont 20 Church Street 22 Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER RUMMEL, IAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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 PHILLIP DENE HUSTAD, PETER TREFONAS III, SHIH-WEI CHANG, and ERIN BETH VOGEL ____________ Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, BRIAN D. RANGE, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-7 and 16-18. 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. Appellant identifies DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC and ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 2 The invention “relates to self assembled structures, methods of manufacture thereof and to articles comprising the same. In particular, the present disclosure relates to self assembled nanostructures obtained by disposing a block copolymer over a polymeric layer that exists in the form of a brush or a mat.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below (formatting added): 1. A polymer composition, comprising a random copolymer derived by reacting: a monomer represented by formula (1): where R1 is an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; or a monomer having a structure represented by the formula (2): Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 3 where R1 is a hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and R2 is a C1-10 alkyl, a C3-10 cycloalkyl, or a C7-10 aralkyl group; with a monomer that has at least one fluorine atom substituent and that has a structure represented by the formula (3): where R1 is a hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and R3 is a C2-10 fluoroalkyl group; and where the copolymer has a reactive endgroup that comprises a silane group; where the reactive endgroup is along a chain backbone of the random copolymer. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Independent claim 16 recites a patterned substrate comprising the polymer composition of claim 1. The Examiner maintains the following rejections for review on appeal: I. claims 1-4, 6, and 16-18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheng (US 7,521,090 B1, issued April 21, 2009) and Zdyrko (Bogdan Zdyrko, et al., Polymer Brushes by the “Grafting to” Method, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2011, 32, 859-869); and II. claims 1-3, 5, and 7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Toyooka (US 5,288,825, issued February 22, 1994) and Zdyrko. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 4 For Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments only for claim 1 and relies on these arguments to address the rejection of the remaining claims. See generally Appeal Br. For Rejection II, Appellant does not argue any claim separate from the other. Id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed for both rejections and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejections based on the arguments presented for claim 1. OPINION Rejection I After review of the respective positions Appellant presents in the Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 16-18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the fact-finding and the reasons the Examiner provides. We add the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 Claim 1 recites a polymer composition comprising a random copolymer having a reactive end group that comprises a silane group, where the random copolymer is made by reacting specific monomers, one of which has at least one fluorine atom substituent. Thus, claim 1 recites a polymer composition in product-by process format and is directed to an article. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is well-settled that the patentability of an apparatus or article of manufacture claim depends on the Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 5 claimed structure. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) (“Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”). The Examiner finds Cheng a random copolymer composition comprising monomers that correspond to the claimed Formulas (2) (methyl methacrylate) and (3) (trifluoroethyl(meth)acrylate). Ans. 3; Cheng col. 8, l. 1-col. 9, l. 5; see also col. 8, ll. 54-55, 66. The Examiner finds that Cheng teaches dispersing or forming the copolymer over a silicon surface. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Cheng does not teach the presence of a silane end group on the copolymer. Ans. 3; Cheng Abstract, Figure lC, col. 12, ll. 39-43. The Examiner finds Zdyrko teaches that it is well known to add silane functional end groups to a polymer chain allows the polymer to form a permanent covalent bond to a silicon surface, resulting in a surface coating that is permanent and robust. Ans. 3; Zdyrko 859-861. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copolymer of Cheng to have a silane end group for the reasons Zdyrko teaches. Ans. 3-4. Appellant argues there is no motivation to add an end capped silane group to Cheng’s random copolymer because (1) Cheng does not teach the addition of an external crosslinking agent outside of the reactive epoxy functionalities to achieve a high degree of crosslinking to afford a crosslinked product and (2) Cheng does not desire additional crosslinking and the presence of an end capped silane molecule in Cheng’s random copolymer will lead to additional crosslinking through two silane functionalized polymers covalently bonding with each other. Appeal Br. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 6 11-12; Cheng col. 6, ll. 54-57, col. 8, ll. 6-28. Appellant further asserts there would be nothing to stop Cheng’s silane-functionalized epoxy- containing cycloaliphatic acrylic polymers from reacting with each other once an end group containing silane species is affixed to the epoxy- containing cycloaliphatic acrylic polymer. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. Ans. 6-7. Moreover, Appellant misapprehends Cheng’ s disclosure with respect to external crosslinking agents. Cheng discloses “[the] epoxy-containing cycloaliphatic acrylic polymers do not require the addition of an external crosslinking agent to afford a crosslinked product.” Cheng col. 6, ll. 54-57 (emphasis added). One skilled in the art would have reasonably inferred from this statement that external crosslinking agents, while not required, may be used if so desired. One skilled in the art would also have reasonably inferred that Cheng’s optional use of external crosslinking agents would not necessarily exclude the use of reactive end groups. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). In other words, Cheng’s noted disclosure identifies preferred and non-preferred embodiments of the disclosed invention. It is Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 7 well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it discloses and not merely the preferred embodiments. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)); see also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (explaining that a prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples). The disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, we decline to limit Cheng’s teachings and suggestions as Appellant contends. We also disagree with Appellant’s contention that the presence of an end capped silane molecule in Cheng’s random copolymer would result in undesirable additional crosslinking, as Appellant illustrates on page 12 of the Appeal Brief for the reasons the Examiner provides. Ans. 6. In addition to the use of functional end groups to attach polymers with complementary functional groups located on the surface, Zdyrko teaches or suggests the use of polymers containing epoxy groups to functionalize surfaces that will aid in grafting polymers to the surface. Zdyrko 859 (Introduction), 862. As the Examiner explains, Zdyrko makes no mention of undesired crosslinking reactions occurring. Ans. 6. Nor does Appellant argue that undesired crosslinking occurs in the process of Zdyrko. See generally Appeal Br. Thus, assuming arguendo that additional crosslinking occurs in Zdyrko’s polymer containing reactive epoxy groups and reactive silane end groups, as Appellant argues, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Zdyrko does not disclose such additional crosslinking as problematic. Ans. 6. Moreover, Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 8 Appellant does not direct us to objective evidence that the presence of silane functional end groups in Cheng’s copolymer would result in the argued additional crosslinking or that such additional crosslinking occurs in the process of Zdyrko. Given the above and that Cheng desires to make a crosslinked copolymer (Ans. 6; Cheng Abstr., col 5, ll. 60-62), Appellant fails to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would not have reasonably expected Cheng’s copolymer including silane functional end groups to be suitable for Cheng’s purposes. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”). Appellant argues that Cheng teaches away from using end group functionalization because this approach results in a “grafting efficiency” that “is typically poor, requires impractically long annealing times, and is compatible with only a limited range of substrates.” Appeal Br. 13; Cheng col. 2, ll. 19-27 (discussing an article by Mansky2). Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner provides. Ans. 8-9. When the prior art teaches away from a combination, that combination is more likely to be nonobvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged 2 P. Mansky, Y. Liu, E. Huang, T. P. Russell, C. Hawker, Controlling polymer surface interaction with random copolymer brushes, Science, 275, 1458, (1997). Mansky was made of record by Appellant via an Information Disclosure Statement dated February 24, 2014. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 9 from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, references in a combination may be said to teach away where their combined teachings would produce a “seemingly inoperative device.” See In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (CCPA 1969). Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965). Appellant’s premise that Cheng teaches away from employing end groups functionalization in a polymer is based on Cheng’s disclosure of concerns related to the use of end groups in polymers. Cheng col. 2, ll. 19- 28 (citing to Mansky article). Cheng, however, fails to identify the specific teachings of Mansky on which Cheng bases these concerns. Moreover, neither Appellant nor the Examiner offers any insight as to Mansky’s teachings with respect to these concerns. See generally Appeal Br. and Final Act. To ascertain whether Cheng teaches away from the use of functional end groups, we must first understand Mansky’s teachings. As Appellant acknowledges, Cheng is directed to attaching copolymers comprising epoxy reactive groups to functionalize surfaces that will aid in grafting polymers to the surface such as a silicon surface. Appeal Br. 10-11; Cheng col. 6, ll. 54-57. Mansky describes “[a] simple technique for precisely controlling the interfacial energies and wetting behavior of polymers in contact with solid surfaces.” Mansky 1458. In addition, Mansky describes grafting end-functionalized statistical random copolymers of styrene and methylmethacrylate onto silicon substrates. Id. We find no discussion in Mansky related to copolymers having epoxy reactive groups. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 10 See generally id. In fact, we find no information in Mansky criticizing the process described in the article. Instead, Mansky concludes “[t]he method discussed here should also be useful in controlling the interfacial behavior of simple fluids and in modifying surfaces to achieve biocompatibility.” Id. at 1460. Thus, we understand Cheng’s criticism focuses on Mansky’s modification of the surface of silicon substrates with end-grafted polymer layers where the polymers do not comprise epoxy reactive groups. That is, at best, Cheng’s concerns are related to the use of end group functionalization by itself as insufficient to attain the result that Cheng desires. Cheng’s solution is to use a copolymer comprising epoxy reactive groups as a surface modifier. Cheng col. 5, ll. 50-62. As we discuss above, Cheng does not foreclose the use of external crosslinking agents in the copolymer comprising epoxy reactive groups. Cheng col. 6, ll. 54-57. Cheng also does not exclude end group functionalization as an external crosslinking agent for the disclosed copolymers. See generally id. Further, turning to Zdyrko, the Examiner explains Zdyrko, like Cheng, recognizes that grafting in general may be problematic for some surfaces because the modification procedures may be complex and laborious. Ans. 8-9; Zdyrko 861. However, as we note above, Zdyrko, like Cheng, teaches the use of a polymer comprising epoxy groups as a surface modifier. Zdyrko 859-861. In fact, Zdyrko supports Cheng’s disclosure that external crosslinking agents can be used with a polymer comprising epoxy reactive groups. Thus, given that Cheng and Zdyrko are both directed to attaching polymers comprising epoxy reactive groups to modify a surface, one skilled in the art would not be discouraged from using Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 11 silane functional end groups in Chen’s copolymer for the reasons Zdyrko suggests. Appellant argues that modifying Cheng in light of the teachings of Zdyrko would produce an inoperable embodiment. According to Appellant, Cheng demands a neutral orientation control layer. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further contends the silane functionality requires water to bond to another species or to a substrate and the presence of water to facilitate covalent bonding with silane end groups would make the orientation control layer too polar to be neutral. Id. Thus, Appellant argues substituting Cheng’s random copolymer with a random copolymer having silane end groups would destroy Cheng’s invention. Id. at 15. Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. Ans. 9-10. Moreover, Zdyrko discloses it is known to tune a surface by reversibly exposing nanometer-sized hydrophobic fragments at its hydrophilic surface and of tuning, turning on, and turning off the hydrophobic interactions. Zdyrko 864. See also Mansky 1458 (“The ability to create a surface that consists of the same monomers as found in a particular blend or copolymer is a great simplification and guarantees tunability over a wide range of surface affinities, including neutrality.”)3. Given that Appellant argues the 3 We note that the Specification discloses “selecting a block copolymer whose surface energy differs as minimally as possible from the surface energy of the surface modification layer.” Spec. ¶ 65. Thus, Appellant, like Zdyrko and Mansky, achieves a particular surface energy by using a particular blend of monomers. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 12 presence of water is known to affect surface polarity during the bonding of a polymer to a substrate using silane functional end groups (Appeal Br. 13- 14), Appellant fails to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of removing unwanted solvent, as Cheng teaches (Cheng col. 2, ll. 59-67), to achieve a desired surface polarity for a desired purpose. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s statement that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any unwanted silane- crosslinked material could be easily removed via the rinsing step taught by Cheng.” Reply Br. 5; Ans. 7. However, we need not reach this issue because it appears that the statement, when read in context with the rest of the paragraph, was meant to refer to unattached material. Ans. 7. Moreover, as we discuss above, the prior art establishes that it is well within the skill in the art to modify polymers to attain a desired surface polarity. Zdyrko 864; Mansky 1458. As we indicate above, claim 1 recites a polymer composition in product-by process format. Because the claim is drafted in a product-by-process format, we are mindful that its patentability does not depend on the process steps recited, except to the extent that the process steps are shown to result in properties not possessed by prior art products. It has long been held that “[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 13 even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697). It is also well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be identical or substantially identical to a product disclosed in the prior art, the burden of proof is on the applicants to prove that the prior art product does not inherently or necessarily possess the characteristics attributed to the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, . . . the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”). The Examiner has provided a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited art. Thus, the burden of proof shifts to Appellants to show that the prior art polymer composition does not possess the characteristics or properties of the claimed invention. See Best, 562 F.2d at 1255; In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellant fails to direct us to objective data showing that the prior art polymer composition does not possess the characteristics or properties of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1- 4, 6, and 16-18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Cheng and Zdyrko for the reasons the Examiner provides and we give above. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 14 Rejection II After review of the respective positions Appellant presents in the Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the fact- finding and the reasons the Examiner provides. We add the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 Toyooka teaches a random copolymer having a good stain resistance, water repellency and oil repellency and exhibiting a lubricating effect useful as a molding composition. Toyooka col. 1, ll. 10-18, 56-63. The Examiner finds Toyooka teaches the random copolymer composition can comprise monomers that correspond to the claimed Formulas (2) (methyl methacrylate) and (3) (dodecafluoroheptyl methacrylate). Final Act. 4; Toyooka col. 2, ll. 33-34, 60-64; col. 3, ll. 8-26. The Examiner finds Toyooka does not teach the presence of a silane end group on the copolymer. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Zdyrko teaches the addition of a silane functional group to the end of a polymer chain allows the polymer to form a permanent covalent bond to a silicon surface, resulting in a surface coating that is permanent and robust. Final Act. 5; Zdyrko 860-861. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copolymer of Toyooka to have a silane end group so the polymer is able to form a permanent and robust covalent bond with a surface, as Zdyrko teaches. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 15 Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not choose to modify the teaching of Toyooka by introducing a reactive silane end group because of the potential for the silanes to first undergo hydrolysis and then react with one another in the presence of atmospheric moisture. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, this reaction will increase the molecular weight thus increasing the viscosity above that desired by Toyooka. Id. Appellant also asserts a belief that the same reaction (2) (shown above) between the silanes end capping agents, will cause an increase in the viscosity of the reactants beyond that required by Toyooka because water must be used in order to permit the condensation of the silane end capped polymers. Appeal Br. 16. To the extent that Appellant relies on a line of arguments similar to the one we address with respect to the prior rejection, Appellant fails to identify reversible error for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. Ans. 10-11. With respect to the viscosity impact of using a silane functional end group in Toyooka’s polymer, we agree with the Examiner that Toyooka teaches methods for adjusting the viscosity in order to obtain the desired viscosity value. Ans. 11; Toyooka col. 3, ll. 1-3. In particular, we note that Toyooka considers the presence of catalysts (initiators) in controlling the viscosity of the polymer to impart a water repellency property to the polymer. Toyooka col. 1, l. 15; col. 3, ll. 1-3, col. 4, ll. 54-63. In addition, Zdyrko also discloses controlling the viscosity of the disclosed polymer composition. Zdyrko 865. In light of these disclosures and given Zdyrko’s disclosure that it is known to tune a surface by reversibly exposing nanometer-sized hydrophobic fragments at its hydrophilic surface and of Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 16 tuning, turning on, and turning off the hydrophobic interactions (water repellency) (Zdyrko 864; see also Mansky 1458), Appellant fails to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of controlling the amount of silane functional end groups added to the polymer from the combined teachings of Toyooka and Zdyrko to adjust the viscosity of the polymer as desired. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; see also Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743. Appellant argues Toyooka is not from the field of endeavor nor is it pertinent to the invention. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the present invention relates to the phase separation of block copolymers for the purpose of patterning semiconductor substrates while Toyooka is directed to fluoroalkyl acrylates for use as additives in lubricating agents. Id. at 16-17. Thus, Appellant contends Toyooka is not pertinent to the problem inventor attempts to solve. Id. at 17. These arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. Ans.11-12. The Federal Circuit has explained that [t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 17 Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly”). Toyooka, like Appellant’s claimed invention, is directed to polymer compositions comprising a copolymer including the claimed monomers of formulae (2) and (3) to achieve a surface energy that results in water repellency. Toyooka col. 1, ll. 11-17. Toyooka attains this specific surface energy through application of a polymer having a particular blend of comonomers. Toyooka col. 13, ll. 45-53. The Specification discloses that the inventive polymer composition provides a surface modification layer with controlled surface energy when applied to a substrate. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 65. The Specification also discloses “selecting a block copolymer whose surface energy differs as minimally as possible from the surface energy of the surface modification layer.” Spec. ¶ 65. Thus, Toyooka, like Appellant, achieves a particular surface energy by using a particular blend of monomers. In view of this, Toyooka is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in terms of polymers that provide surfaces having a controlled surface energy. Toyooka is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved: how to control the surface energy of a surface for a specific desired purpose. Thus, Appellant has not explained adequately why Toyooka is not analogous art with respect to the claimed invention. Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for the reasons the Examiner presents. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1- 3, 5, and 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Appeal 2020-006346 Application 13/397,470 18 Toyooka and Zdyrko for the reasons the Examiner provides and we give above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-7 and 16-18 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6, 16-18 103 Cheng, Zdyrko 1-4, 6, 16-18 1-3, 5, 7 103 Toyooka, Zdyrko 1-3, 5, 7 Overall Outcome 1-7, 16-18 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