Ex Parte Clark et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11300751 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

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.
11/300,751 12/15/2005 James William Clark 21820 2601
23556 7590 03/31/2014
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tammi Langin
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
STANLEY, JANE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1767
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2014 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 JAMES WILLIAM CLARK, PHILIP SHI HUNG HUI, and
JAMES J. DETAMORE
____________

Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-18, 26-29, and 31-42.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a dry wiper for use with
disinfectant solutions comprising a dry synthetic fibrous substrate having a
disinfectant release treatment thereon. According to Appellants, the
disinfectant release treatment can render the wiper disinfectant stable for
common disinfectant solutions, such as a solution of a quaternary
ammonium chloride (quat) compound or sodium hypochlorite bleach
solutions, as well as sanitizing solutions having the same active ingredient
(Spec. 11-12). The release treatment can comprise a quaternary ammonium
compound treatment (Spec. 3).
Claims 1, 17, and 31 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A dry wiper for saturation with a disinfectant solution, the wiper
being stable in a disinfectant solution, said wiper comprising;

a dry substrate comprising synthetic fibers; and

a disinfectant release treatment present on the substrate and the release
treatment is present at an add-on level of 0.20 percent or less, based
on the weight of the substrate;

wherein the disinfectant release treatment renders the substrate
of the wiper disinfectant stable for both quaternary ammonium
disinfectant solutions and bleach disinfectant solutions, as
compared to an untreated dry substrate, such that when the
substrate of the wiper is saturated with a quaternary ammonium
disinfectant solution or a bleach disinfectant solution having an
active disinfectant present in the disinfectant solution, the wiper
is capable of expressing in a range of 90% to 110% of an active
disinfectant present in the saturating disinfectant solution
saturating the wiper to a substrate being wiped with the wiper,
while the untreated dry substrate, when saturated with the same
disinfectant solution expresses the active disinfectant outside
the range of 90% to 110% .
Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

3
17. A wiper system for disinfecting surfaces, comprising;

a dry wiper comprising a dry substrate of synthetic fibers with a
disinfectant release treatment present on the substrate and the release
treatment is present at an add-on level of 0.20 percent or less, based
on the weight of the substrate;

wherein the disinfectant release treatment renders the wiper
disinfectant stable for both quaternary ammonium disinfectant
solutions and bleach disinfectant solutions, as compared to an
untreated dry substrate, such that when the wiper is saturated with a
quaternary ammonium disinfectant solution or a bleach disinfectant
solution, the wiper is capable of expressing in the range of 90% to
110% of an active disinfectant present in the disinfectant solution
saturating the wiper to a substrate being wiped by the wiper, while the
untreated dry substrate, when saturated with the same disinfectant
solution expresses the active disinfectant outside the range of 90% to
110%,

a quaternary ammonium or bleach disinfectant solution, and

a container that contains the dry wiper and into which the
disinfectant solution is introduced.

31. A dry wiper for saturation with a disinfectant solution, the
wiper being stable in a disinfectant solution, said wiper consisting essentially
of;
a dry substrate comprising synthetic fibers;

a disinfectant release treatment consisting of a quaternary
ammonium compound present on the substrate and the release
treatment is present at an add-on level of 0.20 percent or less, based
on the weight of the substrate;

wherein the disinfectant release treatment renders the substrate
of the wiper disinfectant stable for both quaternary ammonium
disinfectant solutions and bleach disinfectant solutions, as compared
to an untreated dry substrate, such that when the substrate of the wiper
is saturated with a quaternary ammonium disinfectant solution or a
Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

4
bleach disinfectant solution having an active disinfectant present in
the disinfectant solution, the wiper is capable of expressing between
in a range of 90% to110% of an active disinfectant present in the
saturating disinfectant solution saturating the wiper to a substrate
being wiped with the wiper, while the untreated dry substrate, when
saturated with the same disinfectant solution expresses the active
disinfectant outside the range of 90% to 110% .

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Sheridan US 5,094,770 Mar. 10, 1992
Mitra US 6,825,158 B2 Nov. 30, 2004
Yahiaoui US 6,767,508 B1 Jul. 27, 2004
Katsigras US 2005/0025668 A1 Feb. 3, 2005

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 26-28, 31-33, 35, 36, 38, and 40-42
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan.
Claims 6, 11, 34, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Mitra. Claims 13 and 39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan in
view of Yahiaoui. Claims 17, 18, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Katsigras.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and affirm the stated rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer. We add
the following for emphasis only.
Concerning the first stated and base obviousness rejection maintained
by the Examiner, Appellants refer to the Examples of Sheridan for the
amounts of cationic surfactant Sheridan employs and argue that “the
Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

5
Examiner has not offered any reason why one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to use less than these amounts in treating a wipe in
accordance with Sheridan” (App. Br. 7).
Contrary to this contention, however, the Examiner has persuasively
articulated how Sheridan teaches amounts of a cationic surfactant
(quaternary ammonium compound) that overlaps with the claimed add-on
range of 0.20 percent or less for the release treatment (quaternary
ammonium compound) and further details where and how Sheridan
otherwise provides impetus for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a
limited add-on amount of the cationic surfactant (quaternary ammonium
compound) falling within the claimed range for purposes of economy in
arriving at an effective amount for a particular end use (Ans. 5-8 and 17-21;
Sheridan, col. 2, l. 14-37; col. 2, l. 54- col. 4, l. 20; col. 7, l. 11; and col. 13,
ll. 5-19).
Moreover, the Examiner has reasonably determined and explained
why the claimed disinfectant stability property would have followed from
the dry wipes of Sheridan formulated to have an add-on amount of
quaternary ammonium compound corresponding to the claimed amount
(Ans. 7, 8, and 21-24). In this regard, we concur with the Examiner’s
determination that Appellants argument of new and unexpected results does
not discharge Appellants’ burden to establish that the subject Specification
examples furnish sufficient evidence to refute the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the Examiner by establishing unexpected
criticality for the claimed add-on amounts of quaternary ammonium
compound (id.).
Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

6
As for separately argued independent claim 31, we concur with the
Examiner’s articulation as to why Appellants have not discharged the burden
of establishing how the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase
employed serves to exclude any of the dry wipe treatment solution
ingredients of Sheridan as being ingredients that would materially affect the
basic and novel characteristics of Appellants’ claimed invention (Ans. 4, 5,
25, and 26). Moreover, we concur with the Examiner’s construction of
claim 31 in so far as limiting the closing effects of the “consisting of”
transitional term to the particular dry wipe component with which it is
employed; that is, the quaternary ammonium compound add-on to the dry
wiper (Ans.26).
For reasons well-articulated by the Examiner in the Answer, we
likewise concur with the Examiner’s obviousness position and rebuttal
disposition as to the separate arguments made with respect to several
dependent claims subject to the first stated rejection and the Examiner’s
separate rejections of certain claims utilizing additional prior art references.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s determinations with respect to
the separate rejection of claims 6, 11, 34, and 37 over the combined
teachings of Sheridan and Mita and the separate rejection of claims 17, 18,
and 29 over Sheridan and Katsigras notwithstanding Appellants’
countervailing argument (Ans.9-17 and 28-35). In this regard, we concur
with the Examiner’s obviousness determination as to claims 6 and 34
because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that Sheridan
would have suggested the use of other known water-soluble available
quaternary ammonium compounds, such as the carbonates of Mitra (Ans. 9
and 29; Sheridan, col. 3, ll. 47-50). As for the system or kit of claim 17, we
Appeal 2012-006990
Application 11/300,751

7
concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found ample direction to package or employ the treated dry wipe of Sheridan
in a system/kit that includes a container wherein the dry wipe can be
combined/packaged for use with a variety of disinfectants for cleaning
surfaces (Ans. 16, 17, and 32-35).
Upon consideration of the argument and evidence of record, we
determine that the evidence and argument tending to establish the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter outweighs the argument and
evidence tending to establish the non-obviousness of the claimed subject
matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejections maintained by the
Examiner.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
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

tc