Ex Parte Chhabra et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 22, 201110712239 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation