Ex Parte Allen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201813792830 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/792,830 03/11/2013 23556 7590 05/30/2018 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kyle Solomon Allen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 64049214US06 2773 EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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): Kimberlyclark. docketing@kcc.com Cindy.M.Trudell@kcc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KYLE SOLOMON ALLEN and DAVID ARTHUR TREFETHREN Appeal2017-003109 Application 13/792,830 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 3---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 A decision was rendered in a related appeal, 2010-005329. Appeal2017-003109 Application 13/792,830 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for folding a web. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 An apparatus for folding a web, comprising: a first conveyor, a second conveyor in close proximity to the first conveyor, wherein the first and second conveyors define an included angle of 15 to 40 degrees, a folding wheel aligned in close proximity to both the first and second conveyors, and a folding bar extending above and generally parallel with the second conveyor. (Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix, 7). REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Umebayashi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0174930 Al; published Nov. 28, 2002; hereinafter "Umebayashi"). Claims 4--6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Umebayashi and Westphal et al., (U.S. Patent No. 4,694,978; issued Sept. 22, 1987; hereinafter "Westphal"). OPINION The dispositive issue presented for both rejections in this appeal is similar to that discussed in Appeal Number 2010-005329. App. Br. 3. The Examiner asserts this is not the case because the limitation at issue in the prior Appeal was contained within a method step. (Ans. 4.) In the previous 2 Appeal2017-003109 Application 13/792,830 Appeal we reversed the Examiner's anticipation rejection on Umebayashi for failing to demonstrate Umebayashi's guide bars 51, relied on by the Examiner as the recited "folding wheel," performed the expressly recited action of the folding wheel, "defin[ing] a folded edge." '5329 Decision on Appeal at 2. Here we reverse because, based on the same facts ("[t]he bars [51] do not appear to have anything to do with folding ... in Umebayashi the web is folded about folding sail 1 before it is passed about the guide bars 51" (id.)), we can see no reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to regard Umebayashi's guide bars 51 as the recited "folding wheel" structure of claim 1. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation