Allison KURANDA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 12, 2021

2020003851 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021)

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.
14/969,657 12/15/2015 Allison L. KURANDA CD-152-CON2 6875
42419 7590 01/12/2021
PAULEY ERICKSON & SWANSON
2800 WEST HIGGINS ROAD
SUITE 365
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60169
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLISON L. KURANDA
Appeal 2020-003851
Application 14/969,657
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, 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 1–10 and 17–26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “invention is directed to a customizable
wrapper for a wrapped product,” where “a portion of [the] wrapper

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest is
Continental Datalabel, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003851
Application 14/969,657

2
assembly . . . is . . . printable or . . . customizable[,] and then assembled with
[the wrapped] product . . . to result in a customized product.” Substitute
Specification (filed March 30, 2016), 4, ll. 12–16. Claims 1, 17, and 22 are
the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A method of customizing a wrapper for a candy
bar as a gift or favor for an event or occasion, comprising the
steps of:
obtaining a candy bar wrapped in an original identifiable
packaging;
obtaining a customizable wrapper assembly including a
face sheet removably adhered to a back sheet, the face sheet
including a wrapper label with a printable surface and sized to
cover a front and back of the candy bar;
customizing the wrapper label by feeding the wrapper
assembly into a printer, and printing a custom graphic on the
printable surface of the wrapper label;
separating the wrapper label including the custom
graphic from the wrapper assembly, wherein the wrapper label
includes an adhesive material coating at least a portion of the
wrapper label;
wrapping the wrapper label around the front and the back
of the original identifiable packaging of the candy bar; and
adhering the adhesive material of the wrapper label at the
back of the candy bar, to cover a front and the back of the
original identifiable packaging of the candy bar with the
wrapper label.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 17–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Witkowski (US 6,594,927 B2, issued July 22,
2003) and Raming (US 6,213,518 B1, issued Apr. 10, 2001).
Appeal 2020-003851
Application 14/969,657

3
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
obtaining a candy bar wrapped in an original identifiable
packaging;
obtaining a customizable wrapper assembly including a
face sheet removably adhered to a back sheet, the face sheet
including a wrapper label with a printable surface and sized to
cover a front and back of the candy bar; [and]
customizing the wrapper label by feeding the wrapper
assembly into a printer, and printing a custom graphic on the
printable surface of the wrapper label.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Witkowski discloses, inter alia,
obtaining a candy bar wrapped in an original identifiable
packaging (Fig. 4h; via original packaging 58); [and] wrapping
the wrapper label around the front and the back of the original
identifiable packaging of the candy bar (via outer wrap 60) . . .
to cover a front and the back of the original identifiable
packaging of the candy bar with the wrapper label, see for
example (Fig. 4h; via 60 covering front and back of
package 58).
Final Act. 2; see also Answer 5. The Examiner appears to rely on Raming
only to disclose “wherein the wrapper label includes an adhesive material
coating at least a portion of the wrapper label.” Final Act. 3.
To the extent that the Examiner relies on Witkowski to disclose the
claimed customizable wrapper assembly including a face sheet removably
adhered to a back sheet, the face sheet including a wrapper label with a
printable surface and sized to cover a front and back of the candy bar, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs because “Witkowski does not
teach or suggest purchasing or otherwise obtaining the candy bar of Fig. 4h
and wrapping outer wrap 60 in a customized wrapper label.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2020-003851
Application 14/969,657

4
Specifically, Witkowski describes that “candy bar-type
packaging 58 . . . comprises an outer wrapper 60 and an inner lining 62.”
Witkowski col. 11, ll. 9–14 (emphases omitted). Because outer wrapper 60
in Witkowski is part of packaging 58, it is not a customizable “wrapper
label” to wrap over “an original identifiable packaging,” as claimed.
The Examiner also states, however, that “Raming discloses similar
method with steps of obtaining a customizable wrapper assembly including a
face sheet removably adhered to a back sheet (Fig. 5; via removable label 22
from back sheet 30), the face sheet including a wrapper label with a
printable surface (via 22).” Final Act. 3. To the extent that the Examiner’s
rejection may rely on an understanding that it would have been obvious to
substitute Raming’s “face sheet” for Witkowski’s, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner errs because Raming’s “face sheet” “does not wrap around
the front and back of the [covered item], and does not cover the front and
back,” as claim 1 recites. Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. Inasmuch as independent claims 17 and 22 include
similar recitations, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of these independent claims. Further, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–10, 18–21, and 23–26 that depend from,
and the Examiner rejects with, the independent claims.

Appeal 2020-003851
Application 14/969,657

5
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of all claims.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 17–26 103(a) Witkowski, Raming 1–10, 17–
26

REVERSED