Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2013

11540418 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JASON C. COHEN, THOMAS M. ALES, III,
SHIRLEE A. WEBER, ANDREW M. LONG, CHRISTOPHER P. OLSON,
and ANSLEY ALLEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-004090
Application 11/540,418
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004090
Application 11/540,418

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, and 10-21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a toilet training system that varies
the type of feedback given to the user. Claims 1 and 12 are independent
claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A toilet training system comprising:
a disposable absorbent article including a
first wetness sensor;
a signaling device adapted to be removably
attachable to the disposable absorbent article,
adapted to communicate with the first wetness
sensor, providing a first feedback mode of a
wetness state of the disposable absorbent article,
and providing a second feedback mode of the
wetness state of the disposable absorbent article,
wherein the second feedback mode is different
from the first feedback mode, and wherein the
device is selectable between the first and second
feedback modes.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sep. 29,
2006), and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jul. 8, 2010), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 29, 2010).

Appeal 2011-004090
Application 11/540,418

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Panopoulos (US 2004/0220538 A1, pub. Nov. 4, 2004).2
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is rejected as anticipated by Panopoulos. Claim
1 includes the limitation for “a signaling device . . . providing a first
feedback mode of a wetness state of the disposable absorbent article, and
providing a second feedback mode of the wetness state of the disposable
absorbent article.” We have reviewed the portions of Panopoulos identified
by the Examiner as disclosing these limitations (Ans. 3-5). However, we
agree with Appellants that none of these portions of Panopoulos teaches the
limitations of “a signaling device . . . providing a first feedback mode . . .
and . . . a second feedback mode” (Br. 3-4). In particular, the Examiner has
not identified with specificity where Panopoulos shows a single sensor that
provides two different feedback modes each indicating wetness, but instead
refers, for example, to paragraph [0164] of Panopoulos which only shows
multiple sensors (e.g., chemical and electronic sensors). For these reasons,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).

2 Although Page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer states “[c]laims 1-21 are
rejected,” claims 2 and 9 were previously canceled.
Appeal 2011-004090
Application 11/540,418

4
Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, we
also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-8, 10, and 11 that depend from
claim 1.
Independent claim 12 is rejected as anticipated by Panopoulos. Claim
12 includes the limitation “the signaling device includes a dynamic feedback
mode system.” Appellants point out that the Specification defines a
dynamic feedback mode system as a system in which feedback modes
change as a function of training conditions or duration of training to provide
appropriate feedback, and argue Panopoulos does not teach such a system
(Br. 2-3, referencing Spec. 16-17, and Br. 4). We have reviewed the
portions of Panopoulos identified by the Examiner as disclosing these
limitations (Ans. 3-6). However, we agree with Appellants that none of
these portions of Panopoulos teaches the above limitations. For example,
even if we agree with the Examiner’s statement that paragraph [0296] of
Panopoulos shows a “network of information inputs, calculations, and
outputs” (Ans. 6), the Examiner has not shown that such a network changes
the feedback offered as a function of training conditions or duration of
training, as required by claim 12 when “dynamic feedback mode system” is
interpreted in view of the Specification. Inasmuch as the Examiner has not
shown Panopoulos teaches the claimed “dynamic feedback mode system,”
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12, we
also do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-21 that depend from claim 12.

Appeal 2011-004090
Application 11/540,418

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-21 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

hh