MARTIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claim 24, the only remaining claim in appellants’ application serial No. 377,162, filed August 28, 1953 for THERMOPLASTIC ADHESIVE RODS OR STRIPS.
Claim 24 reads:
“A package of solid flexible thermoplastic adhesive in coil form, said coil comprising a plurality of turns of rod of substantially uniform cross-section, said rod being formed of a thickness of between about Ys and % inch of a normally solid,, flexible thermoplastic mixture of at least two ingredients at least one of which is a normally solid, thermoplastic, synthetic polymer, said mixture being fluid with a viscosity suitably low for adhesive application at temperatures in the range of 250° F. to 400° F., the physical properties of said rod including the characteristics that said rod is self-supporting, dry, non-tacky, flexible and sufficiently hard to be coiled for storage and uncoiled for use as needed without cracking, said rod being sufficiently stiff to be capable of being fed from said coil and being reducible progressively and rapidly by heat in said temperature range to a fluid condition in quantities as needed for use in a direct through feed industrial cement applying and dispensing system.”
[906]*906Appellants’ application describes a coil of solid, self-supporting, dry, non-tacky, flexible thermoplastic adhesive rod formulated to be fluid in the range of 250°F. to 400°F. The coil is described as for use in a heating and dispensing device in which it is heated to a viscous state and applied to articles to be adhered together. Appellants contend that such use eliminates the need for a molten adhesive reservoir.
The references relied on are:
Price 1,923,456 Aug. 22,1933
Sussenbach 2,510,727 June 6,1950
Shonberg 2,557,574 June 19,1951
Alien Property Custodian Application of Dumont, Serial No. 352,-364, Published April 27, 1943.
Dumont describes the production of shaped structures, such as filaments, rods, tubes and the like from moldable synthetic resins, by extruding the shaped structures in a plastic, liquid or dissolved state from a nozzle rotating quickly around its axis, and finally cold drawing said structures in the direction of the extrusion. In one embodiment of Dumont, a filament “consisting of thermoplastic synthetic resins” is extruded from a nozzle rotating in bearings. The extruded filament is then wound in coils on a cylinder rotating in bearings with a higher peripheral speed than the corresponding extrusion velocity. Dumont teaches that synthetic resins, preferably those possessing a linear structure of the polymeric molecules, may be extruded with a resulting orientation effect which greatly improves their tenacity. Dumont considers this especially true “for the superpoly-condensates * * * such as the superpolyamides and polyamide condensation products which are obtainable either from dibasic acids and dibasic .amines or from aminocarboxylic acids .and their lactames.” 1
Price discloses a package for enclosing ribbon-like products, such as wire, wire solder, tape and the like. The package includes a spool member, and a wrapper for encircling the ribbon-like products wound on the spool.
Shonberg discloses wrapping solder wire or other flexible material helically around a core member, the core member forming the body of a spool.
Sussenbach discloses a sealing composition containing a tacky, adhesive, plastic resin bonding material, chrysotile, an electrical conducting material and an organic polar solvent. In use, a round bead of the plastic sealing composition may be extruded along the margin of a metal plate, another metal plate brought into engagement with the bead, and welding electrodes applied at spaced points along the metal plates. The pressure of the electrodes forces the plates toward one another and squeezes the bead flat. Upon the passsage of the welding current through the electrodes, plates, and sealing composition, the plates are squeezed closer together and become welded together.
The examiner rejected claim 24 on Dumont. He considered the coiled filaments or rods of Dumont to meet all the limitations as to appellants’ thermoplastic material and took the position that Dumont’s coiled filaments or rods obviously possess all the physical limitations defined in appellants’ claim 24.
The examiner also rejected claim 24 as “lacking invention” over Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg. He regarded Price and Shonberg as showing flexible material which has all the physical properties of the material defined in claim 24 formed into rod shape and wound into coil form and concluded that “no invention” would be involved in winding the “rod of Sussenbach” into coil form.
[907]*907The examiner further rejected claim 24 as lacking invention over Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont or Sussenbach. The examiner could find no “invention” involved in substituting the material of Dumont or Sussenbach for the material in Price or Shonberg, thereby providing a coil of adhesive rod. The examiner made reference to the Fibers Chart in “Modern Plastics” — Encyclopedia issue, Sept. 1956, at pages 514 and 515, to show that nylon in filament form “becomes sticky as [sic] 400-455°F which is comparable to the temperature limitations in the claim.” He also considered nylon to be flexible and took the view that, since size is not a matter of “invention,” the dimensional limitations in claim 24 have no effective force.
The Board of Appeals found no error in the examiner’s decision in rejecting claim 24 over (1) Dumont, (2) Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg and (3) Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont or Sussenbach.
In sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 on Dumont, the board stated that “Webster’s New International Dictionary defines ‘adhesive’ as — sticky” and that therefore Dumont’s material may be ‘adhesive’ at 400°F.” The board further referred to pages 174-175 of “The Technology of Adhesives” by John Delmonte (1947) as “showing the use of nylon as an adhesive to be old, specifically as safety glass interlayers and for shoes, boxes, cloth, leather, wood and glass.” The board considered that Dumont’s references to “ ‘filaments, rods * * * and the like’ would suggest to one working in the art a flexible member of the thickness of about % to % inch particularly when viewed with Shonberg.”
The issue facing this court is whether the board was correct in affirming the examiner’s ground of rejection of claim 24 as unpatentable over (1) Dumont, (2) Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg and (3) Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont.
Dumont discloses synthetic resins in the form of shaped structures such as filaments and rods. In a specific embodiment, Dumont shows a solid thermoplastic synthetic resinous filament being wound iri a coil on a cylinder. Thus we think it clear that Dumont suggests-winding thermoplastic synthetic resinous-rods in coils on a cylinder and would therefore suggest a rod in coil form as set forth in claim 24.
Appellants urge that their reference to a package of “adhesive,” the fluid limitation and the size recitation result in structurally distinguishing claim 24 over Dumont.
Dumont teaches that the “superpolycondensates” may be formed into his shaped structures.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MARTIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claim 24, the only remaining claim in appellants’ application serial No. 377,162, filed August 28, 1953 for THERMOPLASTIC ADHESIVE RODS OR STRIPS.
Claim 24 reads:
“A package of solid flexible thermoplastic adhesive in coil form, said coil comprising a plurality of turns of rod of substantially uniform cross-section, said rod being formed of a thickness of between about Ys and % inch of a normally solid,, flexible thermoplastic mixture of at least two ingredients at least one of which is a normally solid, thermoplastic, synthetic polymer, said mixture being fluid with a viscosity suitably low for adhesive application at temperatures in the range of 250° F. to 400° F., the physical properties of said rod including the characteristics that said rod is self-supporting, dry, non-tacky, flexible and sufficiently hard to be coiled for storage and uncoiled for use as needed without cracking, said rod being sufficiently stiff to be capable of being fed from said coil and being reducible progressively and rapidly by heat in said temperature range to a fluid condition in quantities as needed for use in a direct through feed industrial cement applying and dispensing system.”
[906]*906Appellants’ application describes a coil of solid, self-supporting, dry, non-tacky, flexible thermoplastic adhesive rod formulated to be fluid in the range of 250°F. to 400°F. The coil is described as for use in a heating and dispensing device in which it is heated to a viscous state and applied to articles to be adhered together. Appellants contend that such use eliminates the need for a molten adhesive reservoir.
The references relied on are:
Price 1,923,456 Aug. 22,1933
Sussenbach 2,510,727 June 6,1950
Shonberg 2,557,574 June 19,1951
Alien Property Custodian Application of Dumont, Serial No. 352,-364, Published April 27, 1943.
Dumont describes the production of shaped structures, such as filaments, rods, tubes and the like from moldable synthetic resins, by extruding the shaped structures in a plastic, liquid or dissolved state from a nozzle rotating quickly around its axis, and finally cold drawing said structures in the direction of the extrusion. In one embodiment of Dumont, a filament “consisting of thermoplastic synthetic resins” is extruded from a nozzle rotating in bearings. The extruded filament is then wound in coils on a cylinder rotating in bearings with a higher peripheral speed than the corresponding extrusion velocity. Dumont teaches that synthetic resins, preferably those possessing a linear structure of the polymeric molecules, may be extruded with a resulting orientation effect which greatly improves their tenacity. Dumont considers this especially true “for the superpoly-condensates * * * such as the superpolyamides and polyamide condensation products which are obtainable either from dibasic acids and dibasic .amines or from aminocarboxylic acids .and their lactames.” 1
Price discloses a package for enclosing ribbon-like products, such as wire, wire solder, tape and the like. The package includes a spool member, and a wrapper for encircling the ribbon-like products wound on the spool.
Shonberg discloses wrapping solder wire or other flexible material helically around a core member, the core member forming the body of a spool.
Sussenbach discloses a sealing composition containing a tacky, adhesive, plastic resin bonding material, chrysotile, an electrical conducting material and an organic polar solvent. In use, a round bead of the plastic sealing composition may be extruded along the margin of a metal plate, another metal plate brought into engagement with the bead, and welding electrodes applied at spaced points along the metal plates. The pressure of the electrodes forces the plates toward one another and squeezes the bead flat. Upon the passsage of the welding current through the electrodes, plates, and sealing composition, the plates are squeezed closer together and become welded together.
The examiner rejected claim 24 on Dumont. He considered the coiled filaments or rods of Dumont to meet all the limitations as to appellants’ thermoplastic material and took the position that Dumont’s coiled filaments or rods obviously possess all the physical limitations defined in appellants’ claim 24.
The examiner also rejected claim 24 as “lacking invention” over Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg. He regarded Price and Shonberg as showing flexible material which has all the physical properties of the material defined in claim 24 formed into rod shape and wound into coil form and concluded that “no invention” would be involved in winding the “rod of Sussenbach” into coil form.
[907]*907The examiner further rejected claim 24 as lacking invention over Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont or Sussenbach. The examiner could find no “invention” involved in substituting the material of Dumont or Sussenbach for the material in Price or Shonberg, thereby providing a coil of adhesive rod. The examiner made reference to the Fibers Chart in “Modern Plastics” — Encyclopedia issue, Sept. 1956, at pages 514 and 515, to show that nylon in filament form “becomes sticky as [sic] 400-455°F which is comparable to the temperature limitations in the claim.” He also considered nylon to be flexible and took the view that, since size is not a matter of “invention,” the dimensional limitations in claim 24 have no effective force.
The Board of Appeals found no error in the examiner’s decision in rejecting claim 24 over (1) Dumont, (2) Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg and (3) Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont or Sussenbach.
In sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 on Dumont, the board stated that “Webster’s New International Dictionary defines ‘adhesive’ as — sticky” and that therefore Dumont’s material may be ‘adhesive’ at 400°F.” The board further referred to pages 174-175 of “The Technology of Adhesives” by John Delmonte (1947) as “showing the use of nylon as an adhesive to be old, specifically as safety glass interlayers and for shoes, boxes, cloth, leather, wood and glass.” The board considered that Dumont’s references to “ ‘filaments, rods * * * and the like’ would suggest to one working in the art a flexible member of the thickness of about % to % inch particularly when viewed with Shonberg.”
The issue facing this court is whether the board was correct in affirming the examiner’s ground of rejection of claim 24 as unpatentable over (1) Dumont, (2) Sussenbach in view of Price or Shonberg and (3) Price or Shonberg in view of Dumont.
Dumont discloses synthetic resins in the form of shaped structures such as filaments and rods. In a specific embodiment, Dumont shows a solid thermoplastic synthetic resinous filament being wound iri a coil on a cylinder. Thus we think it clear that Dumont suggests-winding thermoplastic synthetic resinous-rods in coils on a cylinder and would therefore suggest a rod in coil form as set forth in claim 24.
Appellants urge that their reference to a package of “adhesive,” the fluid limitation and the size recitation result in structurally distinguishing claim 24 over Dumont.
Dumont teaches that the “superpolycondensates” may be formed into his shaped structures. Such “superpolyeondensates” are exemplified as being “the superpolyamides and polyamide condensation products which are obtainable either from dibasic acids and dibasie amines or from aminocarboxylic acids- and their lactams.” [Emphasis ours.jj
Although Dumont does not specify any particular polyamide nor indicate the fluidity or adhesiveness of a polyamide applicable for his invention, it is clear from the record that the use of polyamide condensation products for adhesives is old. The board referred to Delmonte’s “The Technology of Adhesives,” pages 174-175 (1947) as making such a showing. That reference, for example, teaches that a resin formed from triglycol diamine and adipic acid, which is soluble in water, alcohol, and dioxane, and melts at 185°C. is “of potential value to the field of adhesives.” Such a resin is a polyamide condensation product and Dumont discloses polyamide condensation products. Furthermore, “The Technology of Adhesives” states that:
“ * * * Carothers also describes safety glass applications of these polyamides 72 [2], and other readily soluble polyamides useful for coatings, packaging materials, and adhesives. Ethylene diamines are reacted with fatty acids from soybean [908]*908to form polyamides soluble in inexpensive solvents. They exhibit excellent adhesion to glassine paper, sulfite paper, lead foil cellophane, etc.73 [3]” [Emphasis ours.]
As to the fluid limitation in the range of 250° F. to 400°F. the triglycol diamineadipic acid polyamide referred to in “The Technology of Adhesives” melts at 185°C., i. e., 365°F., which is within appellants’ claimed temperature range,
i Claim 24 does specify “a normally solid, flexible, thermoplastic mixture of •at least two ingredients at least one of ^ which is a normally solid, thermoplastic, synthetic polymer.” [Emphasis ours.] However, claim 24 does not specify what the second of appellants’ “at least two ingredients” is. As pointed out above, Dumont shows a normally solid thermoplastic composition which may be a superpolyamide or a polyamide condensation product and the record shows the adhesive use of polyamides, having a fluidity within appellants’ claimed fluidity range, to be old. Thus, although Dumont does not show a thermoplastic mixture of at least two ingredients, we do not consider the mere requirement of “at least two ingredients,” in the absence of any further language in the claim specifying what that other ingredient is, to patentably distinguish appellants’ claim 24 over the Dumont patent. Furthermore, even though the majority of appellants’ examples have at least two thermoplastic synthetic polymeric materials, appellants have indicated4 that in one of their examples there is but one thermoplastic synthetic polymeric material present and that the “special combination of properties of the adhesive rod in solid and in heat softened condition depends on the presence of the synthetic polymer material in substantial proportion.” As claim 24 reads, the second of appellants’ “at least two ingredients” could be any type of material including a nonpolymeric material.
Remaining for consideration is the recitation in the claim that the rod is formed of a thickness of between about % and % inch. The Dumont reference does not disclose this particular size. However, we think it does suggest formation of a rod of synthetic resinous polyamides in coil form. We consider the thickness of the rods as only an obvious matter of choice.5 There is, of course, nothing in the claim limiting the use of the claimed package to direct through-feeding into a heating and dispensing device. Obviously the package of adhesive may be used by cutting the rods into lengths and melting the lengths in a reservoir. The use of a molten adhesive reservoir has been described by appellants as old.
Since we consider that the appealed claim is unpatentable over Dumont, we find it unnecessary to consider the examiner’s remaining art rejections.
For the foregoing reasons the decision of the board is affirmed.
Affirmed.