Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

13792830 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

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