Xinyu Zhao et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2019

13643393 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2019)

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.
13/643,393 12/14/2012 Xinyu Zhao CICT-41-PCT-
US (2009/U003
8093
104330 7590 09/11/2019
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Ticona LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
RIETH, STEPHEN EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2019 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XINYU ZHAO and KE FENG1
____________

Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JEFFREY T.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 6,010,760, iss. Jan. 4, 2000) in view of
Saito (US 6,280,668 B1, iss. Aug. 28, 2001), Calundann (US 4,067,852, iss.
Jan. 10, 1978), and Miyata (US 5,384,391, iss. Jan. 24, 1995) as evidenced
by Jiang Shicheng et al. (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER AVERAGE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT AND VISCOSITY OF POLY (P-PHENYLENE SULFIDE),

1 Ticona, LLC is identified as the real party in interest (Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
2
Gaofenzi Tongxun, No. 3, 185 (Abstract) (1981)) (“Shicheng”) or
alternatively over Saito in view of Calundann and Miyata as evidenced by
Shicheng and Adeka (ADK STAB PEP-36—PHOSPHITE ANTIOXIDANT
(2009)) and of remaining dependent claims 2–11, 13, 14, and 21 as
unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional
prior art.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim a resin composition comprising a polymer mixture
of an aromatic polyester polymer and a polyarylene sulfide polymer,
wherein the polyarylene sulfide polymer has a melt viscosity of less than
about 80 Pa.s, and reinforcing fibers in an amount from about 10% to about
70% by weight based on the total weight of the resin composition (claim 1).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A resin composition comprising:
a polymer mixture comprising:
an aromatic polyester polymer and a polyarylene sulfide
polymer at a weight ratio up to 1:3, wherein the polyarylene
sulfide polymer is present in an amount greater than the
aromatic polyester polymer and has a melt viscosity of less than
about 80 Pa.s, and wherein the repeating structure of the
polyarylene sulfide polymer consists of —(C6H4-S)n— wherein
n is an integer of 1 or more, wherein the aromatic polyester has
a melting point of from about 320°C to about 400°C;
at least a first stabilizer comprising a phosphite
comprising tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphite, bis(2,4-

2 Though listed in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, dependent
claim 22 has been canceled (see, e.g., Answer 29).
Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
3
dicumylphenyl) pentaerythritol diphosphite, distearyl
pentaerythritol diphosphite, or a combination thereof; and
reinforcing fibers in an amount ranging from about 10%
to about 70% by weight based on the total weight of the resin
composition,
wherein the composition exhibits a color L reduction of
less than 1 and a gloss reduction of less than 5%.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (see generally Br.). Accordingly, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
We sustain the § 103(a) rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well stated by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
Concerning the rejection of claim 1 over Miyazaki in view of Saito,
Miyata and other references, the Examiner finds that Miyazaki discloses a
resin composition comprising a mixture of an aromatic polyester polymer
and a polyarylene sulfide polymer in combination with reinforcing fibers but
does not disclose the claimed melt viscosities of the polyarylene sulfide
polymer or the claimed amounts of the reinforcing fibers (Answer 3, 5, 7).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add Miyazaki’s
reinforcing fibers in the amounts claimed in view of Saito (id. at 5–7) and to
use as Miyazaki’s polyarylene sulfide polymer one of Miyata’s polyarylene
sulfide polymers which possess melt viscosities (e.g., 10.1 Pa.s) within the
claimed range of less than about 80 Pa.s (id. at 7–8).
Appellants emphasize that Miyazaki’s polyarylene sulfide polymer in
Example 3 has a melt viscosity of 140 Pa.s and argue that the low melt
viscosities of Miyata’s polyarylene sulfide polymers would be too low to
provide the shear necessary for obtaining the fibrous form desired by
Miyazaki (Br. 10–11).
Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
4
In responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that Miyazaki
teaches the necessary shear is achieved by a melt viscosity ratio (i.e., of a
thermoplastic resin (polyarylene sulfide polymer) to LCP (aromatic
polyester polymer)) (Answer 31). The Examiner applies this ratio to
Miyazaki’s Example 3 and finds that unsuitable melt viscosities of
Miyazaki’s polyarylene sulfide polymers are below 4 Pa.s (id.). These
circumstances lead the Examiner to find that Miyata’s polyarylene sulfide
polymer melt viscosities of, for example, 10.1 Pa.s are suitable for Miyazaki
(id.). We emphasize that Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings
in the record of this appeal (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed).
The Examiner also considers Appellants’ argument unpersuasive
based on the finding that Miyazaki discloses alternative methods for
obtaining the desired compositions (e.g., having the desired fibrous forms)
(id. at 32). For example, the Examiner finds that Miyazaki teaches obtaining
the compositions using a dispersion aid (e.g., the phosphites disclosed by
Miyazaki and defined by the appealed claims) rather than a particular melt
viscosity ratio (id.). According to the Examiner, “Appellant[s] ha[ve] not
provided sufficient evidence that the melt viscosities of Miyata’s PPS would
be material to, or impact in any way, the ability to achieve Miyazaki’s
compositions should a phosphite dispersion aid be used” (id. at 32–33). As
above, we emphasize that Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s
position on this matter.
In addition, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s proposed combination
of Miyazaki and Saito by arguing that Miyazaki already solves the problem
addressed by Saito (Br. 12–14).

Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
5
The Examiner responds by explaining that Miyazaki teaches a
composition containing reinforcing fibers but does not teach any
concentrations or amounts for these fibers (Answer 34). The Examiner
further explains that Saito addresses this deficiency of Miyazaki by teaching
effective amounts of such fibers in compositions corresponding to those of
Miyazaki (id.). For these reasons, the Examiner determines that an artisan
would have been motivated to add the reinforcing fibers of Miyazaki in the
amounts taught by Saito including amounts within the scope of claim 1 (id.).
Appellants do not rebut this response by the Examiner.
For the reasons given by the Examiner including those emphasized
above, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections based on Miyazaki in view of Saito, Miyata, and other references.
Concerning the rejection of claim 1 based on Saito in view of Miyata
and other references, the Examiner finds that Saito discloses a resin
composition comprising a polymer mixture of an aromatic polyester polymer
and a polyarylene sulfide polymer but does not disclose a polyarylene
sulfide polymer having a melt viscosity less than about 80 Pa.s as claimed
(Answer 11, 14). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to use as Saito’s polyarylene sulfide polymer one of the polyarylene sulfide
polymers of Miyata which possesses a melt viscosity (e.g., 10.1 Pa.s) within
the claimed range (id. at 14).
Appellants emphasize that Saito discloses a polyarylene sulfide
polymer having a melt viscosity of 150 Pa.s and argue that no reasonable
expectation of success exists for replacing a high melt viscosity polyarylene
sulfide polymer of Saito with Miyata’s low melt viscosity polyarylene
sulfide polymer (Br. 16–17).

Appeal 2018-008634
Application 13/643,393
6
The Examiner responds by finding that Saito discloses no restrictions
concerning the melt viscosities of the polyarylene sulfide polymers used in
Saito’s compositions (Answer 35–36). Moreover, the Examiner finds no
evidence (e.g., in Saito or Miyata) supporting Appellants’ contention that an
artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in using
Miyata’s low melt viscosity polyarylene sulfide polymers in the
compositions of Saito (id. at 36). The record contains no rebuttal by
Appellants of the Examiner’s above findings.
On the record before us, Appellants’ arguments also fail to reveal
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections based on Saito in view of Miyata
and other references.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2–11, 13, 14,
and 21.
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