Rockwool International A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 5, 2022

2021001126 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 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. 15/314,606 11/29/2016 Frank Janssen GJE-026220 US PCT 1065 26294 7590 01/05/2022 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. 1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700 CLEVELAND, OH 44114 EXAMINER WORRELL, KEVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/05/2022 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): docketing@tarolli.com rkline@tarolli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK JANSSEN Appeal 2021-001126 Application 15/314,606 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 and 24-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwool International A/S (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-001126 Application 15/314,606 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a growth substrate product. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A coherent growth substrate product formed of man- made vitreous fibres bonded with a cured binder composition and a wetting agent, characterised in that the wetting agent is an alkyl ether sulphate. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Schlotterbeck US 2011/0281926 A1 Nov. 17, 2011 Cuypers WO 2008/009461 A1 Jan. 24, 2008 Naerum WO 2012/028650 A1 Mar. 8, 2012 Olson WO 2013/040403 A1 Mar. 21, 2013 REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1) claims 1-15 and 24-35 over Cuypers in view of Schlotterbeck; and 2) claims 1-4, 6-15, 24, 25, 27-30, and 32-35 over Naerum in view of Olson. OPINION With respect to each rejection, the Appellant argues the claims as a group (Appeal Br. 11-16). We therefore limit our discussion of each rejection to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. The dependent claims stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Rejection over Cuypers in view of Schlotterbeck Cuypers discloses a mineral wool growth substrate comprising a binder and a wetting agent (p. 1, ll. 6-8). The wetting agent preferably is an Appeal 2021-001126 Application 15/314,606 3 anionic surfactant (p.7, l. 24). The preferred anionic surfactants include anionic sulfate surfactants (p. 7, ll. 31-32), and Cuypers does not limit the anionic sulfate surfactants to any particular anionic sulfate surfactants. Thus, Cuypers would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of any known anionic sulfate surfactant, including the alkali metal lauryl ether sulfate surfactants disclosed by Schlotterbeck (¶ 123). As pointed out by the Appellant (Appeal Br. 12-13), Schlotterbeck’s alkali metal lauryl ether sulfate surfactants are an auxiliary component of an agrochemical formulation containing a copolymer (sticker) for adhering pesticides to plant propagation material to reduce pesticide-containing dust during handling of the plant propagation material (¶¶ 2-5, 45, 54-58, 113, 120, 123). Although Schlotterbeck’s use of the alkali metal lauryl ether sulfate in a plant propagation material differs from Cuypers’s use of an anionic sulfate surfactant in a mineral wool growth substrate, Schlotterbeck would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that the alkali metal lauryl ether sulfate surfactant is an available species within Cuypers’s anionic sulfate surfactant genus and, therefore, is suitable for Cuypers’s use. Rejection over Naerum in view of Olson Naerum’s relevant disclosure is similar to that of Cuypers (Naerum, p. 1, ll. 2-5, p. 13, ll. 3-14) and, accordingly, would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of any known anionic sulfate surfactant, including the sodium lauryl ether sulfate surfactant disclosed by Olson (¶ 15). Although, as pointed out by the Appellant (Appeal Br. 14-15), Olson’s sodium lauryl ether sulfate is used in a soil improver (¶ 13), Olson would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sodium lauryl Appeal 2021-001126 Application 15/314,606 4 ether sulfate surfactant is an available species within Naerum’s anionic sulfate surfactant genus and, therefore, is suitable for Naerum’s use. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Appellant’s claimed growth substrate would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combined disclosures of Cuypers and Schlotterbeck or the combined disclosures of Naerum and Olson, and the Appellant has not provided evidence effectively rebutting the prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15, 24-35 103 Cuypers, Schlotterbeck 1-15, 24-35 1-4, 6-15, 24, 25, 27- 30, 32-35 103 Naerum, Olson 1-4, 6-15, 24, 25, 27- 30, 32-35 Overall Outcome 1-15, 24-35 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