Ex Parte Chhabra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2011

10712239 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/712,239 11/13/2003 Rajeev Chhabra 9103M 8603
27752 7590 06/23/2011
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MATZEK, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAJEEV CHHABRA, RONALD THOMAS GORLEY,
JEFFERY LEN OSBORNE, JONATHAN PAUL BRENNAN, and
ALI ABDELAZIZ ALWATTARI
____________________

Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith (US
3,616,157, issued October 26, 1971) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dobrin (US 6,383,431 B1, issued May 7, 2002) in view of
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

2
Smith and Curro (US 2002/0034912 A1, published March 21, 2002). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention relates to a nonwoven substrate, particularly
used as a wet wipe for both personal hygiene and surface applications (Spec.
1:14-15). The nonwoven substrate has reinforced regions that make it
possible to retain the thickness of the wipe when wet without increasing the
dry basis weight (Spec. 3:1-3). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A nonwoven substrate comprising at least one
undeformed first region and at least one second region, wherein
the second region comprises a strained region forming a
protruding element extending beyond a surface plane of the
substrate, the protruding element locked by a reinforcing means
in the second region selected from the group consisting of
thermal bonding, chemical bonding, ionic bonding, adhesive
bonding and combinations thereof, wherein the nonwoven
substrate retains its thickness when wet.
For both rejections, Appellants focus their arguments on particular
claim limitations common to both independent claims 1 and 10 and do not
present any separate arguments directed to the dependent claims. (See
generally Br.). Therefore, we decide this Appeal on the basis of
representative independent claim 1 for both the first rejection and the second
rejection.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer as our own and add
any additional findings of fact appearing below for emphasis.
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

3
II. FIRST REJECTION –
ANTICIPATION OR OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON SMITH
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
A first issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and
the Examiner is: does the evidence support the Appellants’ view that the
Examiner erred in finding that Smith teaches a nonwoven substrate having a
“undeformed first region” and a second region “comprising a strained region
forming a protruding element extending beyond a surface plane of the
substrate” which is “locked by a reinforcing means”? We answer this
question in the negative.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Smith’s unembossed, uncompacted areas 44
and 46 of Figure 9 constitute the claimed “undeformed first region” and that
Smith’s embossed, compacted areas 40 and 42 of Figure 9 constitute the
claimed “second region” (Ans. 4) (citing Figure 9, col. 4, ll. 23-35).
Appellants contend that the unembossed, uncompacted areas (first
region) of Smith are described as “slanted and angularly oriented” and, thus,
are not “undeformed” as recited in the claims (Br. 3; see Smith, col. 3, ll. 20-
26). The Examiner contends that the unembossed, uncompacted areas of the
nonwoven substrate that “have not been acted upon” meet the requirement
that the first region be “undeformed.” The question is whether the
Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed claim language is “reasonable.”
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

4
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Appellants’ Specification does not provide an express definition of the
term “undeformed” (see generally Br.). Rather, Appellants’ Specification
defines the “unformed” first region only by comparison to the second region.
Specifically, the Specification states that “[i]n comparison to the second
regions, the first regions are less geometrically deformable. Hence, while
the first regions may also undergo such geometric deformation, it is less than
what is discernible with respect to the second regions of the substrate”
(Spec. 5:21-24). Thus, according to Appellants’ Specification, some
deformation is acceptable in the first region so long as there is substantially
more geometric deformation in the second region. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Smith’s unembossed, uncompacted areas fail to meet the
claim limitation merely because they are described as extending “slantingly
and angularly from the intermittently spaced embossed, compacted fibrous
areas” (see Smith, col. 3, ll. 20-26).
Smith teaches that fibrous portions 28 and 30 in Figure 4 (similar to
the areas 44 and 46 in Figure 9 relied upon by the Examiner as the claimed
“first region”) are “unembossed and uncompacted and retain their original
softness, bulk and loft and provide fabriclike qualities of softness and hand,
as well as loft, resiliency and drape to the embossed nonwoven fabric 26”
(Smith, col. 3, ll. 26-30). In other words, the unembossed, uncompacted
areas substantially retain the characteristics of the nonwoven substrate.
We agree with the Examiner that the unembossed, uncompacted areas
44 and 46 in Figure 9 are not acted upon, and, thus, have substantially less
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

5
deformation than the embossed, compacted areas 40 and 42 that the
Examiner relies upon as constituting the “second region.” For example,
Figure 7 demonstrates a perspective view of the embossed nonwoven
substrate, from which it is apparent that the embossed, compacted areas have
substantially greater deformation than the unembossed, uncompacted areas
(see Smith, Figure 7).
Appellants also contend that the embossed, compacted areas of Smith
are described as “compressed,” not “strained,” as recited in the claims (Br.
3). However, Appellants’ Specification defines “strained” so broadly as to
read on the compressed areas of Smith. Specifically, Appellants’
Specification states that “it is believed that the second regions are formed by
straining of the starting substrate positioned between teeth 403 of plate 401,
meaning that the mass, which is contained in the sections that form the
second regions, extends beyond the plane of the substrate” (Spec. 9:8-11).
In other words, the Specification defines the term “strained” only by the
physical presence of a mass extending beyond the plane of the substrate, and
not by any particular action taken on the substrate to achieve that result.
Appellants further contend that Smith does not teach “a protruding
element extending beyond a surface plane of the substrate,” i.e., a “strained
region” (Br. 3). Accordingly to Appellants, Smith teaches the embossed
compacted areas “lie in planes of substantially parallel top and bottom
surfaces” (Id.). The Examiner finds that “the depressed embossment 40 may
serve as the surface plane and the elevated embossment 42 may serve as the
claimed protruding element” (Ans. 10).
Neither Appellants’ claims nor Appellants’ Specification defines “a
surface plane of the substrate” (see generally claim 1 and Spec.). We find
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

6
the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “a surface plane of the
substrate” to be reasonable and not inconsistent with the Specification.
Figures 4, 7, and 9 clearly show a portion of the upper surface of the
substrate (elevated embossments 22, 42) lying in a different and parallel
plane than a lower surface of the substrate (depressed embossment 24, 40)
(see Smith, Figures 4, 7, and 9). We agree with the Examiner that the
elevated embossment 42 lying in a different plane is thus “a protruding
element extending from” the plane of the depressed embossment 40 in
Figure 9. Appellants have not provided any argument or evidence upon
which we would find the Examiner’s interpretation to be unreasonable.
Appellants also contend that, because Smith teaches that the
unembossed, uncompacted areas “hingedly connect” the embossed,
compacted areas, the embossed, compacted areas cannot be construed as
locked protruding elements as claimed (Br. 4).
Appellants’ Specification defines “locking” as “physically
constraining the fibers in the second region” (Spec. 6:8-10).
The Examiner points to the teaching in Smith of applying a resin or
other coating to only the embossed, compacted areas for “enhancing the
shape-stability of the embossed nonwoven fabric” and finds that this resin
would necessarily provide “additional resistance to deformation caused by
external forces” (Ans. 7 and 9; Smith, col. 8, ll. 3-7).
The plan language of the claims, as well as Appellants’ Specification,
require only that the fibers of the second region be locked, or physically
constrained. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the resin taught by
Smith would physically constrain the fibers in the second region. Thus, it is
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

7
of no moment that the first region fibers are not locked and provide a hinged
connection for the locked second region fibers.
Appellants’ arguments do not reach the Examiner’s application of the
teachings of Curro.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, as obvious over Smith.
III. SECOND REJECTION –
OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON DOBRIN IN VIEW OF SMITH AND
CURRO
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
A second issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants
and the Examiner is: does the evidence support the Appellants’ view that
the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a resin material as taught by Smith to lock the
protruding elements of the nonwoven substrate taught by Dobrin? We
answer this question in the negative.
B. DISCUSSION
Appellants contend that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Dobrin and Smith because: (a) Dobrin requires a film which
would constrain the substrate in an x-y plane, and, thus, the additional
reinforcement means of Smith is not necessary, and (b) Smith teaches that
the embossments can result in stiff, boardy regions, which are undesirable
for Dobrin’s intended use as soft, cloth-like backsheets (Br. 5).
Appellants’ arguments are based on a misapprehension of the
teachings of Dobrin and Smith. We agree with the Examiner that Dobrin
teaches that the nonwoven substrate optionally may be added to a film, if
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

8
desired (Ans. 10). Dobrin includes a broader teaching of the nonwoven
substrate without such a film (see Dobrin, col. 1, ll. 10-15; col. 3, ll. 7-10;
col. 5, ll. 30-33; col. 38, ll. 9-12). Thus, Dobrin does not necessarily require
the presence of a film, as suggested by Appellants.
Smith teaches that stiff, boardy wiping fabric is undesirable and
unsatisfactory and occurs when the embossed area covers the entire surface
of the each side of the nonwoven fabric (overall embossing) (Smith, col.
1:46-49). The Examiner relies on the structure of the wipe taught by Dobrin,
which does not have the entire surface embossed. Thus, this teaching of
Smith is not relevant to the Examiner’s rejection. Moreover, Smith
particularly teaches that the nonwoven fabric has “fabriclike qualities of
softness and hand, as well as loft, resiliency and drape” (Smith, col. 3, ll. 28-
30), which are similar to the desired properties of the fabric taught by
Dobrin (see Dobrin, col. 4, ll. 16-21).
Thus, Appellants’ arguments fail to establish that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined the teachings of Dobrin and Smith for
the reasons stated by the Examiner (see Ans. 7).
Appellants also contend that the combined teachings of Dobrin and
Smith do not result in the claimed invention because (a) Smith teaches
“compressed” as opposed to “strained” second regions and (b) the embossed,
compacted areas of Smith are hingedly connected and thus cannot be
construed as locked protruding elements (Br. 6).
The Examiner has not relied upon the teachings of Smith to provide
the claimed structure but, rather, has relied upon the structure of Dobrin.
The Examiner has relied upon Smith to teach the locking of the protrusions
of the second, strained region taught by Dobrin. (Ans. 7 and 11). Appellants
Appeal 2010-001247
Application 10/712,239

9
fail to specifically address the Examiner’s position articulated in the Answer
or to explain why the Examiner’s rationale is deficient. Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness under the law.
IV. CONCLUSION
On the record before us and for the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the rejections maintained by the Examiner.
V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cam