PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 2021

2021001471 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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. 15/662,894 07/28/2017 SONGWEI LU 16010944A1 1169 24959 7590 06/28/2021 PPG Industries, Inc. IP Law Group One PPG Place 39th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15272 EXAMINER ROLLAND, ALEX A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1796 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): cjones@worldpatents.com ipdocket@ppg.com patlaw@worldpatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SONGWEI LU, JIPING SHAO, and ZILU LI Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, 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 to reject claims 1–4 and 6–11. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a multi-layer antireflective coated article. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A coated article comprising: (A) a substrate; (B) a first coating layer applied directly to at least one surface of the substrate; wherein the first coating layer has a dry film thickness of 90 to 150 nm and is formed from a sol-gel composition comprising at least an alkoxysilane and wherein the first coating layer demonstrates a refractive index of 1.62 to 1.85; (C) a second coating layer applied to at least one surface of the first coating layer; wherein the second coating layer has a dry film thickness of 87 to 97 nm and is formed from an acidic sol-gel composition comprising: (a) tetraalkoxysilane; (b) alkyl trialkoxysilane; (c) a silane-functional acrylic polymer; (d) inorganic oxide particles; (e) a mineral acid; (f) water; and (g) a solvent; and wherein the second coating layer demonstrates a refractive index of 1.40 to 1.48; and (D) an anti-fouling coating layer applied to at least one surface of the second coating layer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date He US 6,942,924 B2 Sept. 13, 2005 Ikeda US 2007/0146887 A1 June 28, 2007 Lu US 2016/0145441 May 26, 2016 Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 6–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Ikeda. Final Act. 3. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Ikeda in view of Lu. Final Act. 5. OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s contentions set forth in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Reply Brief, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections (e.g., see generally Ans.). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant(s) to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal in related Appeal 2020- 0044952 including a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over this instant application. Furthermore, the related appeal involves a § 103 rejection of all its claims over Ikeda, and Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has improperly mixed and matched two different embodiments of Ikeda’s anti- reflective coating composition in order to arrive at the seven components listed as (a) to (g) in claim 1 are substantially the same in both appeals. We do not find these arguments persuasive for the reasons given in Appeal 2 A decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections in Appeal 2020-004495 is being mailed concurrently with this decision. Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 4 2020-004495; that is, in summary, the use of a silane functional acrylic polymer for the anti-reflective coating as exemplified in Ikeda’s third embodiment for the anti-reflective coating of Ikeda’s fourth embodiment would have been within the skill and creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., for example in an amount as little as .05% since the claim recites no minimum amounts of any of the components). Appellant further argues that He does not suggest using an alkyl trialkoxysilane in combination with a tertaalkyloxysilane in the second coating layer (Appeal Br. 10) and that He does not suggest an anti-fouling coating layer (id.). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection as they fail to take into account the applied prior art as a whole. As pointed out by the Examiner, Ikeda is relied upon to teach the use of a trialkoxysilane in combination with a tertaalkyloxysilane for an antireflective coating layer (Ans. 4). Furthermore, the Examiner aptly points out that one of ordinary skill would have readily understood or inferred that He’s third layer would have functioned as an anti-fouling layer (id.). Appellant has not provided any persuasive technical reasoning or evidence to the contrary. 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.”); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (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). Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 5 Dependent claim 3 recites that the first component layer is formed from a sol-gel composition comprising a resin component comprising an epoxy functional trialkoxysilane and other components (Claims App. 15-16). The Examiner relies upon Lu to exemplify curable sol-gel compositions similar to those of He and based on the applied prior art as a whole concludes that it would have been obvious to use the components listed in claim 3 in He’s first coating composition (Final Act. 5). Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not have used the trialkoxysilane of Lu in He’s first relatively high refractive index layer because these components are known to reduce the refractive index (Appeal Br. 12, relying on He col. 3, ll. 50-58) are not persuasive of reversible error. As pointed out by the Examiner, while He teaches it is generally known that organosilanes reduce the refractive index, He nonetheless includes the same and still produces a layer having a relatively high refractive index (Ans. 4). Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Thus, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the use of Lu’s trialkoxysilane in He’s first relatively high refractive index layer would have been within the skill and creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art (for example in an amount as little as .05% since the claim recites no minimum amount of any component) for “tuning the refractive index” (Ans. 4). Appeal 2021-001471 Application 15/662,894 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6–11 103 He, Ikeda 1, 2, 6–11 3, 4 103 He, Ikeda, Lu 3, 4 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–11 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