SOLUTIA INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2021

2020003538 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
14/830,902 08/20/2015 HANS CREYTENS 85861US02 6431
66024 7590 05/27/2021
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY
200 SOUTH WILCOX DRIVE
KINGSPORT, TN 37660-5147
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEGHA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2021 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):
estiltner@eastman.com
jlmcglothlin@eastman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS CREYTENS, GARY MATIS, and ARISTOTELIS
KARAGIANNIS
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, 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 1–7, 9–12, 16–18, and 24–27. 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. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Eastman Chemical Company. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to polymeric sheets and
interlayers. Spec. ¶ 2. More particularly, Appellant describes the invention
as relating to tapered polymer sheets that could be used as an interlayer of,
for example, safety glass or photovoltaic solar panels. Id. at ¶¶ 3–7. Claim 1
is illustrative, and we reproduce it below while emphasizing certain key
recitations:
1. A polymeric sheet suitable for producing an interlayer,
said sheet comprising:
a first polymeric layer comprising at least one polymeric
resin,
wherein said sheet comprises an upper sheet surface and
a lower sheet surface and includes opposite first and second
outer terminal edges, wherein the width of said sheet is
measured between said first and said second outer terminal
edges,
wherein said first polymer layer comprises at least one of
said upper sheet surface and said lower sheet surface and has a
thickness of at least 0.25 mm,
wherein said sheet comprises at least one tapered zone
and at least one substantially flat zone, wherein said tapered
zone has a wedge angle of at least 0.10 mrad, wherein said
substantially flat zone has a wedge angle of less than 0.05 mrad,
wherein the ratio of the width of said tapered zone to the
width of said sheet is in the range of from 0.70:1 to 0.90:1,
wherein at least one of said upper sheet surface and said
lower sheet surface has been embossed to form an embossed
region, wherein the total surface area of said embossed

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated March 28, 2019
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), and
the Examiner’s Answer dated December 17, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

3
region is at least 95 percent of the total surface area of said
upper or lower sheet surface on which said embossed region
is located, wherein said embossed region has an average Rz
value in the range of from 20 to 90 microns, and wherein at
least 90 percent of said embossed region has an Rz value
within 25 percent of the average Rz value for said embossed
region.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).

REJECTION AND REFERENCES
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–7, 9–12,
16–18, and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee et al., US
2007/0009714 A1 (Jan. 11, 2007) (“Lee”) in view of Bourcier et al., US
2008/0268204 A1 (Oct. 30, 2008) (“Bourcier”). Final Act. 2.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 10 as a group and does not
substantively argue any of the dependent claims’ recitations. Appeal Br. 13,
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

4
18. Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims stand
or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner finds that Lee teaches a polymeric sheet suitable for an
interlayer having, for example, the general geometry recited by claim 1.
Final Act. 3 (citing Lee). The Examiner finds that Lee teaches that the upper
and lower surface of its sheet is embossed in order to allow air to escape
during the lamination process. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner finds that Lee does
not explicitly teach that at least 95% of the surface is embossed but
determines it would have been obvious to emboss the entire surface to allow
for de-airing the entire surface. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Lee does
not explicitly teach uniform roughness (i.e., 100% of the embossed region
having an Rz value within 25% of average) but determines that it would
have been obvious to have uniform roughness so all air can be removed
during lamination. Id. at 3–4
The Examiner finds that Lee does not explicitly teach an Rz
(roughness) value between 20 and 90 microns. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds
that Bourcier teaches embossing an interlayer with an average Rz value of
50-90 microns. Id. (citing Bourcier). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to use Bourcier’s roughness with Lee’s product so that
outer surfaces can readily be de-aired. Id.
Appellant argues that neither reference teaches that 95% of the sheet
is embossed and that it would not have been obvious to emboss at least 95%
of the sheet. Appeal Br. 12, 14. Appellant further argues that the references
do not teach embossing uniformity (90% of the embossed region having an
Rz within 25% of average Rz value) and that it would not have been obvious
to reach such uniformity. Id. at 12, 14–17. We agree with the Examiner,
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

5
however, that Lee and Bourcier reasonably suggest reaching an interlayer
where more than 95% of the layer is embossed and where the embossing is
relatively uniform. Ans. 3–4.
With respect to embossing more than 95% of the layer, both Lee and
Bourcier teach that roughening the interlayer surface is important to allow
air to escape. Lee ¶ 60 (“[S]heets to be used as interlayer within laminates
have at least one roughened surface to effectively allow most of the air to be
removed between the surfaces of the laminate during the lamination
process”); Bourcier ¶ 24 (“RZ and RSM values given above, which are
imparted by embossing . . . result in outer surfaces that can be readily
deaired”). Based on the teachings of Lee and Bourcier, a person of skill in
the art would have had reason to extend embossing throughout the interlayer
so that the advantages of de-airing would exist throughout the interlayer.
Ans. 3–4; see also 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.”).
With respect to uniformity, Lee and Bourcier suggest relatively
uniform roughness. Lee teaches, for example, “[r]ough surfaces on one or
both sides” and suggests applying the rough surface with a die roll “which
imparts the desired surface characteristics to one side of the molten
polymer.” Lee ¶ 71. Bourcier similarly suggests, for example, “the entire
shaping surface of the embossing roll is engraved with a sawtooth
configuration” which is used to emboss the interlayers. Bourcier ¶¶ 14–17.
A person of skill in the art would have understood that using a rough surface
die roll that has one pattern across its entire surface will result in a relatively
uniform surface. Appellant directs us to no evidence to the contrary.
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

6
Moreover, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
uniformly remove air across the product (i.e., with uniform roughness) to
result in “uniform performance and appearance of the product” (Ans. 3), and
Appellant does not persuasively dispute this position.
Appellant further argues that Lee fails to address the “variety of
challenges including the unevenness of the surface roughness that has
resulted when attempts have been made to emboss such an interlayer.”
Appeal Br. 15. Appellant does not direct us to evidence of these challenges.
Lee and Bourcier each describe methods for roughening the surface of their
interlayers (see, e.g., Lee ¶ 71; Bourcier ¶¶ 13–18), and a person of skill in
the art would have had a reasonable expectation that following these
methods would successfully result in the roughened interlayers Lee and
Bourcier teach.
Appellant also argues that Appellant “unexpectedly discovered and
successfully produced polymeric sheets with non-uniform thickness that are
embossed with areas of exceptionally even roughness.” Appeal Br. 15. As
the Examiner notes, however, Appellant does not provide data sufficient to
establish unexpected results as compared to the cited art. Ans. 4. Appellant
also does not provide evidence that the results are unexpected. As such, the
weight of the evidence before us, including the evidence put forth in
connection with the unexpected results argument, favors obviousness.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection because Appellant does not
identify error.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Appeal 2020-003538
Application 14/830,902

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–12,
16–18, 24–
27
103 Lee, Bourcier 1–7, 9–12,
16–18, 24–27

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