SOLUTIA INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 20212020003538 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation