Ex Parte Schocke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2013

10546804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte KAI-OLIVER SCHOCKE, PETER SEELMANN, UWE HILD,
BIRGIT HAEFNER, GERALD MOLNAR, and ERICH AUER
__________

Appeal 2011-005800
Application 10/546,804
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ULRIKE W.
JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a tanning
aid. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 16-29 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2). The claims
have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 16 is representative and is set forth in the
Appeal 2011-005800
Application 10/546,804

2
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-10). An excerpt of
claim 16 reads as follows:
16. A tanning aid, which comprises:
a polymethyl methacrylate shaped body, where the transparency of the
polymethyl methacrylate shaped body at 380 nm is at least 40 %, and the
polymethyl methacrylate shaped body comprises 0.005 to 0.4 % by weight,
based on the weight of the polymethyl methacrylate shaped body, of at least
one triazine compound according to formula (I)

. . . .
Claims 16-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hosch et al. (US 4,381,136, Apr. 26, 1983) in view of Metzger et al.
(US 6,193,960 B1, Feb. 27, 2001) and Gupta et al. (US 2001/0031866 A1,
Oct. 18, 2001) (Ans. 4).
The Examiner relies on Hosch for teaching “a colored acrylic glass
cover” (id.). The Examiner finds that the “pre-requisite for suitability as a
cover material for ultraviolet sources are the greatest possible transparency
for ultraviolet (UV) of the desired wavelength region and the sufficient
insensitivity of the cover material to UV radiation” (id.) The Examiner also
finds: Hosch teaches “that the acrylic glasses as covers are known per se for
shaping the materials. Acrylic glasses are colorless, which are either homo-
Appeal 2011-005800
Application 10/546,804

3
polymer of methyl methacrylates or co-polymer of methyl methacrylates,
and are suitable for use as covers for light sources which emit ultraviolet
light.” (Id. at 4-5.)
In addition, the Examiner finds that Hosch teaches “that the acrylic
glasses can further comprise light-protective agents as stabilizers and
coloring agents for coating ultraviolet-emitting radiation sources” (id. at 5).
In particular, the Examiner finds:
Hosch et al. teach that the stabilizers, i.e. light-protective
agents or thermal stabilizers, can be present in an amount from
0.01 % to 1 % by weight of the acrylic glass polymer, wherein
the type of stabilizers, i.e. sterically hindered amines, are
preferred. . . . Hosch et al. also teach the presence of these
stabilizers in acrylic glass can protect the acrylic glass polymer
against the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the region
from 300 to 800 nm, wherein the effects include degradation of
the polymeric polymers into monomeric or oligomeric
fragments that cause a yellowing of the polymers, and
degradation that causes material inhomogeneity and tension
cracks.
(Id.) The Examiner also finds that Hosch does “not teach the triazine
compounds of formula (I) as light protective agents,” but that this
“deficiency is cured by Metzger et al. and Gupta et al. in combination” (id.
at 7).
In particular, the Examiner relies on Metzger for teaching “novel
s-triazine compounds which have high UV-absorption, and thus are
particularly suitable for use as UV filters” (id.). The Examiner finds that
Metzger’s compounds meet the claimed chemical structure (id. at 8).
In addition, the Examiner relies on Gupta for teaching “novel triaryl-
1,3,5-triazine compounds and the use[] of these compounds . . . as UV light
Appeal 2011-005800
Application 10/546,804

4
absorbers . . . , in stabilizing polymers and other materials from degradation
by environmental forces, i.e. UV radiation” (id.).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to combine
the teaching of Hosch et al. with Metzger et al. and Gupta et al. to arrive at
the instant invention” (id. at 10). In particular, the Examiner concludes:
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to try the
triazine compounds because they are amine compounds with
sterically hindered structures, and are known as UV filters
having high UV absorption, and are known to be useful for
stabilizing a wide variety of materials, such as various organic
polymers used in applications of plastics and shaped articles,
as taught by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the
s-triazine compound as UV protective agent and incorporate[] it
into the polymethyl methacrylate shaped body, as claimed, in
order to protect the shaped body from being degraded by the
harmful action of UV radiation.
(Id.)
ANALYSIS
We incorporate the Examiner’s fact finding, conclusion, and response
to arguments as set forth in the Answer. We include the following
additional comments:
We recognize that Metzger does not describe its compounds as
stabilizers. However, Metzger does disclose that its triazine compounds
have high UV absorption (Metzger, Abstract). In addition, Gupta discloses
the use of triazine UV absorbers “for stabilizing a wide variety of materials”
(Gupta, ¶ [0028]), including methacrylates (id. at ¶ [0095]). Thus, we
conclude that there would have been a reasonable expectation that Metzger’s
triazine compounds would stabilize Hosch’s acrylic glass materials.
Appeal 2011-005800
Application 10/546,804

5
In addition, we conclude that the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the resulting product would have a transparency at 380 nm
of at least 40% (see, in particular, Hosch, Figure). In particular, Appellants
have not provided sufficient basis to assume that adding the claimed amount
(0.005 to 0.4% by weight) of the claimed triazine to a PMMA shaped body,
as described in Hosch (Hosch, col. 3, ll. 41-43), would have been expected
to reduce its transparency at 380 nm to below 40%.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the tanning aid
of claim 16 would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 16 and of claims 17-29, which fall with claim 16.
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).

AFFIRMED

lp