Application of Anthony J. Urbanic and Francis J. Maurer

319 F.2d 267, 50 C.C.P.A. 1564

• Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
• Decided: September 27, 1963
• Docket: Patent Appeal 6935
• Status: Published

Opinion

''MARTIN,'Judge‘!‘n

,This,ds,.,an:,apj)eql from a. decision df the.Board of. Appeals affirming''the „ex-animer’s? rej ection, of claims 2,6 „ to 32, 34 to.37)áh'd.‘39 to 50 1 q'f!'áppeíl,ahts,i'application Serial -’bird, 328,509," filed .December.' 2S, Í952, 'fqr. RIGIDSlíOCIt RESISfÁNÍ:',PVC> 2 >''lSr'o 'ólaím/has been' allowed...........,- -

.Appellants,’,.appljoation,; dps,crib.es,a.rigid - dnipact .-pgsistapi., plastic. .composition of^matter^containing,^) a, vipyl .halide polyniQv, e! g,, .a. .vinyl , chloride, homo-polymer o,rj.:a..vinyl,,chloride copolymer, plasticized,:with.,.(II). small .amounts of certain.,r.ubbery,,copolymgrs ,o.f, a conjugated- diolehn of .less-than 8 carbon 'atoms, e. g. butadiene, and at. least one. copolymepizable-.monqlefinjc compound,., e. g. acrylonitrile; or, ispprppenyl, ketone, said rubbery, copolymer, bej,ng characterized by, .having a. specific, .proportion of solubilizing , niteile (-CN) .pr, . carbonyl (~P0v) -, groups. Criticality is, urged, for the proportion ,of,rubbery .copolymer in the composition and for the proportion of nitrile or carbonyl groups in the rubbery copolymer! Appellants state in their brief that it makes no difference how the hydrocarbon backbone in the rubbery copolymer is formed, i. e. whether by polymerizing, two monomers such as butadiene and acrylonitrile or by polymerizing three monomers such a3 butadiene, acrylonitrile and styrene; rather, they state “The invention is based on the uniqueness of the result when the ratio of carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon backbone to solubilizing nitrile or carbonyl groups is within a definite range.”

Appellants' compositions may be prepared by mixing (I) and (II) in any convenient way, for example by masticating the vinyl halide polymer with the rubbery copolymer. The compositions are used for the preparation of plastic pipe, automotive parts, playing cards, license plates, traffic markers, phonograph records and the like.

The following claims are representative:

“26. A rigid impact resistanc [sic] heterogeneous polyvinyl halide base alloy composition comprising about 83 to 98 parts of rigid vinyl halide holopolymer [sic] and about 2 to 17 parts by weight of a rubbery polymer of conjugated diolefin of less than 8 carbon atoms and a copolymerizable monolefinic compound having limited compatability [sic] with said homopolymer and having compatibility-producing groups depending from the carbon atoms directly forming links in said polymer chain, said rubbery polymer containing -CN groups present in the ratio of one said -CN group for each 14 to 30 carbon atoms of the rubbery polymer, the main plasticizing constituent in said composition consisting of rubbery high polymer, the amount of other plasticizers being insufficient to destroy the rigidity of the composition.

“27. A rigid impact resistant heterogeneous polyvinyl halide composition comprising about 83 to 98 parts of a rigid polyvinyl halide and about 2 to 17 parts by weight of a rubbery high polymer of a conjugated diolefin of less than 8 carbon atoms and a copolymerizable monolefinic compound, said rubbery polymer being characterized by having a chain consisting of carbon to carbon, links from which depends one -CN group for each 12.5 to 30 carbon atoms outside of said solubilizing groups of said polymer, said solubilizing groups being attached to the long molecular chain of said polymer but not being links therein, all of the carbons directly forming links in said molecular chain plus % of the carbon atoms in dependent aliphatic hydrocarbon side chain groups, plus y% of the carbon atoms in dependent aromatic hydrocarbon groups being considered as carbons of said polymer, the main plasticizing constituent in said composition consisting of rubbery high polymer, the amount of other plasticizers being insufficient to destroy the rigidity of the composition.

“43. A rigid, shock-resistant polyvinyl composition comprising 83 to 98 parts total of at least one member of the group consisting of polyvinyl halides and copolymers of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride, which copolymers consist of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine, and 2 to 17 parts of plasticizer for said group member, the said plasticizer being characterized by consisting essentially of a rubbery high copolymer of a conjugated diolefin having less than 8 carbon atoms and about 12 to 27.5 mol percent of the copolymer of a copolymerizable monomeric compound having highly polar groups and selected from a member of the group selected from acrylonitrile and methyl isopropenyl ketone, the main plasticizing constituent in said composition consisting of rubbery high polymer, the amount of other plasticizers being insufficient to destroy the rigidity of the composition.

“49. A thermoplastic fusion blend consisting essentially of 100 parts of solid emulsion-prepared polyvinyl chloride resin and from 2 to 5 parts of butadiene: acrylonitrile copolymer rubber containing from 18 to 22% of combined acrylonitrile, the said blend being characterized by an impact strength at least several times greater than the impact strength of the polyvinyl chloride resin alone, a flexural strength of at least 8000 pounds per square inch, a flexural modulus of at least 2.5X105 pounds per square inch, and a tensile strength of at least 4800 pounds per square inch.”

Claims 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 are drawn to a polymeric vinyl halide composition that is substantially within the scope of claims 26, 27 and 43, while claims 28 and 32 recite a method of forming the claimed composition which comprises masticating together the various components thereof. «Claims 30 and 31 are drawn to an extruded article of the claimed composition. Claim 50 is similar to claim 49.

The references relied on are:

Patton et al. 2,580,460 Jan. 1,1952

Humphrey et al. 2,647,101 July 28,1953

Schaffel et al. 2,656,333 Oct. 20, 1953

The Patton et al., Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents disclose plastic ■compositions of matter containing a vinyl ihalide polymer and a rubbery copolymer.

The issues in this appeal are: (1) the adequacy of the disclosure of the instant application to support claims 49 and 50; (2) the patentability of the appealed claims over Patton et al., Humphrey et al. or Schaffel et al.; (3) the propriety of the definition of the “purported invention” in the claims.

Issue No. 1.

The examiner held that appellants do not have adequate basis in their application for claims 49 and 50, insofar as those claims recite (1) “fusion blend,” (2) “100 parts of * * * polyvinyl chloride resin and from 2 to 5 parts of butadiene: acrylonitrile copolymer rubber containing from 18 to 22% of combined acrylonitrile,” and (3) “a flexural strength of at least 8000 pounds per square inch, a flexural modulus of at least 2.5X10° pounds per square inch, and a tensile strength of at least 4800 pounds per square inch” and therefore rejected those claims as being based on an insufficient disclosure. The board sustained the “Examiner’s rejection of claims 49 and 50 as having no basis in the disclosure as filed.” Claims 49 and 50 were presented by appellants for purposes of interference with U. S. Patent No. 2,803,621 to Schwartz et al. Claim 49 is identical with the only claim in the Schwartz et al. patent. Claim 50 is a modified form of claim 49, claim 50 omitting any reference to “a flexural strength of at least 8000 pounds per square inch, a flexural modulus of at least 2.5X10° pounds per square inch, and a tensile strength of at least 4800 pounds per square inch.”

The invention in the Schwartz et al. patent is directed to “Thermoplastic Fusion Blend of Emulsion-Prepared Polyvinyl Chloride Resin and a Small Amount of Butadiene: Acrylonitrile Copolymer Rubber” and is based solely on the discovery that when a critical, small amount, i. e. 2 to 5 parts by weight, of a butadiene: acrylonitrile copolymer rubber containing a narrow range, i. e. 18% to 22%, of combined acrylonitrile, and 100 parts by weight of solid emulsion-prepared polyvinyl chloride resin are fusion blended, the impact strength of the polyvinyl chloride resin is increased many times over, while the flexural strength, tensile strength, and other desirable properties of the resin remain substantially unimpaired. In general, the compositions of the Schwartz et al. patent “are truly rigid, strong materials, having a flexural strength of at least 8000 p. s. i., a flexural modulus of at least 2.5X10° p. s. i., and a tensile strength of at least 4800 p. s. i.”

We agree with the examiner that appellants’ specification does not support the recitation of “100 parts of * * * polyvinyl chloride and from 2 to 5 parts” of a rubbery copolymer. 3 We do not con sider that the critical, small range of ■ from 2 to 5 parts .is disclosed in the. ap- , .plicatipn. ■. It , is apparent from,. the Schwartz et, al. patent that the. extrá- : primary.. characteristics of the. patentees’.blend.are dependent on that critical, small range... , , ., . , ,

The patentees point, out ¡that¡increásing the copolympr rubber content2-to >10, 15 -ahd;20 ¡párts markedly reduces».the timpáct.Strength: valufesnof ‘their.'blend. • Moreovér,:'thé>.paténtées Indicate-.that'-lan ■ increase-in ¡the copolymer rubber content to 7y TO; 15: and:20-parts quickly-reduces : the -flexural ¡strength, > -.tensile -¡strength '¡and flexu-ral1-modulus-: of ¡the patentees’ ■ blend W'imaecáptable.ñevelá:^^ -r.jn > •■

’’’ ! Xpbeliatits cbbt.bnd^tbWt^^heji'"'disclose ‘ ’2!, ’3, 4' arii‘ 5 [*p-ér 'Vífeiití ‘of‘‘th'e^rübitéfy copolymer blendbd'in ’the'-emulsion PVC -■and- that'-•'■While' Schwartzi'ét-’-ail.'mse a '•'slightly1‘different1 designation calling'for N párts' !;bf ■ the-'rubbery ' copolymer ,2i:ri'’Í00';p£irts 6f':P'V'G),¡;the1 disdlosurés-in :’th'e ''Sdiwhftz et'ál':,:pfit'éiit and1 appéllapfs’ 'sb'ebífieátibn’áré-ínót 'iííafériálly'-different.

1 ,’<]pñsicíeipng appellants’.' specibcátjbri/it redds: ""i ' ' ’ V”’ i 1 ' -.1 ¡'¡./i ■ .1 ; j .- ,¡>

“The ¡mogt desirable, propo^tiop L of., mbbory, .pglymgp ^nuthe ..polyyinyl. copspogijáoij js¡ deppjidqnt tc>;. ..spjnp,. px^ept.¡;on ,the pqmp.ptibility ,of . the t^o materials,,,but ;J,have, found., -no, ca.se; wherp - the ..amount, of. ,the¡ ( ...rubflery.polymers shppld exceed 20% .,. ,of the ¡weight ?f the mixture to. pb-tain desirable properties in.the.poly-.... vinyi flalide.. .. More, than 20,% ..of,. the rubbery polymer .bps a njarkpdlyi ■ undesirable effect. • on f;he heat - dis-. ( tortion of the, blend. Even 2 or. 3%. , of the rubbery,polymer or polymers produce a very significant improve- - ment in the properties of the mixture and may be used when extrusion apparatus suitable, for mixing ‘the more difficultly processable materials polyvinyl chloride is available. Such ' a blend will process, even better than does the straight unplastjcized poly- . vinyl chloride. ,

,, “Hoiweyey, ...processing is .greatly improved when-.at .least. 4 or 5%. .or .preferably at. least 7%. of the. rubbery- plasticiser is incorporated in .the polyvinyl halide. . The,most.desirable characteristic ¡including pro.pessing,;: heat. distortion.. and impapt are.,obtained whep>thq proportion of the rpbbery plasticized,polymer contaiping á' solubilizing or, compatibil,ity-‘pro duping group, is in the^ neigTi■* hprhooé, pf -.ló fá by the weight of ifie fpípsiicize.d j cprnpositó,nt [sic].” .....[Emphasis ours.] , ' .

• n We ■ do- ¡not > think ..that-i this ¡ ¡disclosure supports,-: the >. critical/-.'smalb.Jramgé:- -of ‘¡‘from 2: to,*,5>- parts’’ of rubbery --.copdlymer;.-< ¡Appellants disclose ¡that-.the--'most desirable: ¡characteristics'! of-¡their blend are found; ¡wbSW tbfi r rubbery, 5 qppolymer is in the neighborhood of 10% of the ■'wdight''b'f'. ttíé’'bleúd. Thb; SthWafiz et ;'áll! pátérifl1 on Ülíe -other -hand, 'f éachés' that ‘’a'ble'nd1 cdntáifiifíg' 10 pdrts’’of'-rubbery .cppolynier, has a markedly reduced Impact ..value a-pd. has i¡,nác.ceptablé :flexuyal , dpxiir.al •woduius.. _;v

f. With respect,,'to,jthe recitation “fusion , qla.iíúg ¡ 4=9, and f50,|,vy'e ^find,, it -;uhnqcessaiw,l,t)o,.ipasS;, op -.whether' appellants,’ , specification: supports. jt. 'because we, find that, other lipiitatipns. ■ of .these copied, claims are. unsupported- . Both contain-the, “from, 2,/to '5. parts” -limitption aboye ¡discussed, and additionally claim 49 contains limitations to á blend which possesses “a flexural -strength -of at .least 8000 pounds per square inch, a .flexural modulus- of at least -2..5X10S pounds per- square .inch, and, a. tensile strength of .at least 4800 pounds per square' inch.” , - . - " .

■Issue No. 2.

Claims '26-28, 30-32,' 35-37, 39 and 41-48 stand rejeqted'as unpatentable over Humphrey, et al'.,' or’ Schaffel et al. It is. ,the examiner's position, that the Humphrey et, al. patent discloses that a composition containing (1) 20 parts of a "rubbery copolymer'' Of' 85 per cent butadiene' and 15 per; cent acrylbni tibié' and (2) ’ 100 parts' Of a’vinyl1 chloride polymer, and' thát 'the - ScháfEeP;et al. ■ patent discloses' a’cómposíiión ¿'obtaining*’' (1) 5 or 10 per'cení'of/a' plasticizing rubbery 'co'polymér bf''6"0 per'cent ‘bütá4-'-1 diené and 40 per cent Isoprdpebyl ketone and (2) '95 or 90’per'cent óf a'polyvinyl1' halide. 'Since thóse*:compoSit‘iobs aré included ib appellants’claimed subject mat-*' ter, 4 the examiner considered the- aft--* pealed cláims unpátebtable over' H'ümph- * rey et "al. and Schaffel et al. ' The board sustained the ‘examiner" and; found’ “thé: Examiner’s action “is 'without reversible ■ error.” " "; '* *" '

A, careful, apalysis.-of, the r)Huipphrgyt et al.. patent shoiys, that .the,.film^,.1of,.thp.; patentees’' inyention dmay,, contain ¡from. about 20 to: about. 120-.parts .by weight of- butadiene-aerylonitrile-type- copolymer, per 100 -• parts ’-by weight of vinyl - chloride resin.” - -¡(Emphasis ours/) The: patentees further disclose that the bútádiene-acrylonitrilecopolymer, may be .any copolymer of a butadienettype, compound,, e. g.-butadiene, “with from 10% toi.55%”. (Emphasis- ours),---based on the-weighted the copolymer, of an acrylonitrile'-typé'1 compound, evg. acrylonitrile, ,; The,, patented- claims:,state?that the rubbery c.o“r polymer -.may- --benone tbf biroftt" ‘‘£5%'>ito > abbut "75% ¡-¡(Emphasis4 OÜrsV) ", :......'

.The specification of the Schaffel et al. , patent/reads...

“It.,is,.therefore .desirable that the.. ..rubbery..plasticizer -comprise. 40 to 60 per cent of a ¿onjugated ,diolefin or.diolefinic compound, and 60 to bO Ter "cent','p!f'”flie’' ¿ómpátibility-pro^

*Ber^íBfi|s'jO^/tíié.'.invention/' may be".obtained'with as little as 5 or..10 per cent of the rubbery poly-" mer [a copolymer of , butadiene and methyl isopropenyl ketone] in a mix- ./ ture having 90 to 95 per cent of "the ¡ pqlyvinyl; resin „ [polyvinyl chlor/ide/]V” . '|/Emphasis ours.,] .. ."

We believe that sueli, .disclosures of,, the Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents' would' teach1 compositions enc'ompasáéd’'by”thé claimed’ subject* matter.

Appeilabt^' utge- thaf :the 'teachings 'óf the rubbéry' ¿opoljiiher' shoWri iii * tlie Humphrey’ et aí.' psítébt’ is ‘limited’"to that disclosed in ‘the Working examples of the patent, j. e./orié<cphtáípihg,‘4'5 per cent polymerized 'adryidnitrilk.' "W'é do not ágre'e with/that cónténtiób!' We believe that .to/ obe. havin'g ordinary 'skill in thé"art. the" extent" Óf, the' teaching woiild’be,: governed'by-what the pát'eht as a whole discloses. "

Appellant's argue that"" th'é;'tíÓárd':áhd the' 'éxámihér‘'failed1'to' íéftlíke tKát the invebtiob'-'is''dibectéd ‘tirithe '"Óütstáhding impfoveMehtt'-iff'-ibibhct "fedistabce of' a rigid,':éá'M mktérial'-without dp'préciábly reducing*'its 'he'át 'distortion” fesisíáiicé. 5 It is urged, insofar as those features are concerned, that the examiner and the board ignored the criticality of ranges as shown in appellants’ specification and the affidavits on record.

In considering this argument we first must note again that compositions covered by appellants’ claims are taught by the Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents. We also think it clear from the Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of and expect a variance in the properties of compositions in those patents as a result of the manipulation of (1) the proportions of monomers in the rubbery copolymer and (2) the ratio of the rubbery copolymer and polyvinyl halide.

The Humphrey et al. patent states

“The properties of these films may be minutely adjusted, for particular applications, by manipulation of a number of variable factors such as the selection and proportions of the butadiene-type and acrylonitrile type compounds, of the selection amongst the several vinyl chloride polymers and copolymers, and the ratio in which these materials are incorporated in the films.” [Emphasis ours.]

The Schaffel et al. patent states:

“The amount of rubbery plasticizer in the vinyl composition may be varied greatly and determines the character of the final product. Small amounts, such as 5 parts or so, of plasticizer in the composition gives a very noticeable plasticizing effect and the rubbery nature of the product is increased as the amount of rubbery plasticizer is increased.”

Both the Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents employ their rubbery co-polymers as plasticizers. Appellants refer to the rubbery copolymer as “plasticizing high polymer or rubber.” 6 It seems clear from the teaching in those patents that if one skilled in the art wants a rigid composition of polyvinyl chloride and a plasticizing rubbery co-polymer of a diolefinie compound (e. g. butadiene), he would minimize the amounts of rubbery copolymer in the composition, whether the amount of diolefinie compound in the rubbery copolymer be 60 per cent as it may be in the Schaffel et al. patent or 85 per cent as it may be in the Humphrey et al. patent. The fact that those compositions would also have impact resistance would be an inherent characteristic of the compositions. It is well settled that a patent cannot properly be granted for the discovery of a result which would flow naturally from the teaching of the prior art. See In re Libby, 255 F.2d 412, 45 CCPA 944.

Furthermore, a careful analysis of appellants’ application and affidavits has not convinced us as to any criticality in the specific ranges recited in appellants' claims. 7

Claims 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 differ primarily from claims 26, 27 and 43 in range recitations. We can find nothing in the record to show a criticality of such ranges over the compositions disclosed in the Humphrey et al. and Schaffel et al. patents, and consider the selection of those ranges to be merely an obvious matter of choice. Likewise we find nothing of patentable significance in method claims 28 and 32. Claims 30 and 31 are drawn to an extruded article and an extruded pipe respectively comprising a composition as set forth in claim 27. However, those claims do not set out any definite structural limitations. We do not consider the recitation of an extruded article or pipe to constitute a feature patentably distinguishable over the prior art.

Since we find claims 26-28, 30-32, 35-37, 39 and 41-48 unpatentable over the Sehaffel et al. and Humphrey et al. patents, it is unnecessary to consider the examiner’s rejection of those claims on Patton et al. or his rejection as to the propriety of the definition of the “purported invention” in those claims.

For reasons given above, the decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1 . Appellants in their brief withdrew their appeal as to claims 29, 34 and 40. ’

2 . Appellants apparently use PTC to refer to “polyvinyl chloride compositions.”

3 . As pointed out, claims 49 and 50 were presented by appellants for purposes of interference with the Schwartz et al. patent. When one copies claims from a pat ent for the purpose of interference there must be no doubt that an applicant must disclose each and every material limitation of the copied claims. -. See Segall v. Sims et al., 276 F.2d 661, 47 CCPA 886.

4 . . -That íact-’haámot befen-,denied-,by • lants. To,;suppqrt-his-, position aminer referred to polymer 1 in Table I of. appellants’ specification,-which shows tha.t a, .copolymer .of 85 per .cent ,butq&ene' and l5 per. pent acryIoni|rílp,i'(yinyí‘cyr' anide) has ¡app.roximately. 25, carbons per solubi/izmg/groupf|/ The exammer,pointed. oi(t that a{ pompqsitiqn containing .26' papfs /of u a ruh^e’ry copolymeh/and/ ÍÓÓ’.' parks'' pi/.g./yinyl /jpol^^^eor// responds ;tq/a" composition,j(avipg a lé2!:' 83^( fubb.'ery, copol’yttipr,.tq/vin^l cíilo/ííc]q polymer ratio/and^tfat/tíiát eorniiositiorL, is /eneoinpa.spqil ."by, .f&„' Similarly, the"'examiner ,^iaied that .ap/; péllaaúri'hadc specifically i pointed ,to".<the\ disqjtfp.ed. ^copqlymers'.v'.of (30 ip,ep ,c,ept, butadiene and 40 per cent methyl isopropenyl. ketone to. support the “12.5” in app.qaled ,,.(:laim| 27., ..The record,, indicates that/“12.5”, carboh/atoms /when, commcted/to /niol/pei? cent //is,, equal /to ' mol percent.”'. The- term'“,’27’.5''nloI per-: cent is recited m appellants claim 43.

5 . Aside from claims, 49 and 50, .the api“:r< .i. /.‘in' ■jliji.iiii'i •-■■I ,iii {/in.t! - pealed claims specify no..degree of rigid-,, lty, impact ...resistance or/anq heat dis-, -A’ .‘io'Tjio . .ip 'a-T.*)-.- i:. /in -ml tortion, resistance .for the. claimed com-'T:-; . --i::.f-r- ,i:-■■■ mi ■: .;;«,!>[ r- , liositmiis.., ,,,s¡w 'j'-.-rni ij

6 . Appellants in the specification state “The plasticizing high polymer or rubber is considered to be made up of a hydrocarbon portion similar to ordinary rubber and solubilizing groups.” [Emphasis ours.]

7 . Claim 27, for example, specifies a rubbery polymer “being characterized by having a chain consisting of carbon to carbon links from which depends one -ON [nitrile] group for each 12.5 to 30 carbon atoms outside of said solubilizing groups of said polymer.” As to an acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer, the record shows comparative test data from which we can draw our own conclusions on only one acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer having a nitrile content outside of the claimed ranges, i. e. a butadieneacrylonitrile copolymer containing approximately 10 atoms of carbon per nitrile group in Table II of appellants’' specification. We do not think this adequate to demonstrate a criticality of the range “12.5 to 30.”