Ex Parte Corlett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14641273 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/641,273 03/06/2015
36790 7590 05/29/2018
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
POBOX49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nadia Corlett
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.
1032.773 1036
EXAMINER
SU, SUSAN SHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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 NADIA CORLETT
Appeal 201 7-009113
Application 14/641,273
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nadia Corlett ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Diaperoos, LLC. Br. 5 (filed
Aug. 22, 2016).
Appeal 2017-009113
Application 14/641,273
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of individually packaging a single-use
disposable diaper for use in intimate absorption of body fluid,
compnsmg:
(a) compressing a single-use disposable diaper for use in
intimate absorption of body fluid from a first condition to a
second, compressed condition; and
(b) retaining the single-use disposable diaper in the
second, compressed condition with a pressure differential that
acts upon a substantially flexible, substantially air impermeable
material to maintain the single-use disposable diaper in the
compressed condition, the pressure differential being created
by,
(i) locating the single-use disposable diaper in an
interior space of a substantially air impermeable,
substantially flexible material,
(ii) creating a negative pressure within the interior
space, and
(iii) hermetically sealing the single-use disposable
diaper at the negative pressure within the flexible
material,
(iv) wherein said single-use disposable diaper is
the only single-use disposable diaper contained within the
hermetically sealed substantially air impermeable, substantially
flexible material.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Froidh et al. (US 4,735,316, issued
Apr. 5, 1988, "Froidh '316"), Muckenfuhs et al. (US 4,934,535, issued June
19, 1990, "Muckenfuhs"), and Chesterfield et al. (US 5,664,408, issued
Sept. 9, 1997, "Chesterfield").
2
Appeal 2017-009113
Application 14/641,273
2) Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Froidh '316, Muckenfuhs, Chesterfield, and Odabashian
(US 4,958,735, issued Sept. 25, 1990).
3) Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Froidh '316, Muckenfuhs, Chesterfield, and Froidh et al.
(US 4,802,884, issued Feb. 7, 1989, "Froidh '884").
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, and 6 as a group. Br. 8. We select
claim 1 as representative and claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "hermetically sealing the single-use
disposable diaper at the negative pressure within the flexible material." Br.
11 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that none of the applied references disclose
packaging a diaper at a negative pressure. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that
although Chesterfield discloses vacuum-packaging various products,
Chesterfield does not include diapers among those products and thus, it "is
unclear on how Chesterfield could possibly be characterized as disclosing or
suggesting packaging a diaper at a negative pressure." Id. According to
Appellant, just because vacuum-packaging is "widely known," does not
mean that "it would have been obvious to use such a methodology to
package a diaper." Br. 9. Appellant contends that because "all claim
limitations" are not taught, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Id.
3
Appeal 2017-009113
Application 14/641,273
The Examiner responds that Chesterfield is only cited to teach
vacuum-packing and would have been an anticipatory reference if it taught
diapers. Ans. 7. The Examiner notes that Froidh '316 and Muckenfuhs both
disclose diapers as well as using compact packages for easier and cheaper
transport. Id. According to the Examiner, the disclosures of Froidh '316
and Muckenfuhs establish "a recognized need and motivation to compress
diapers inside their packaging." Id. The Examiner contends that
Chesterfield "fills the gap, by disclosing that one may use vacuum to
compress a soft product ... that would be easier to transport." Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
readily understand that a soft product includes diapers and is "compressible
(as taught in Muckenfuhs) and therefore may be compressed and vacuum-
packed using the technology disclosed in Chesterfield," which Appellant
admits is a widely known technology. Ans. 8.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because it amounts to an
attack on the references individually while the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981 ). As the Examiner correctly finds both Froidh '316 and
Muckenfuhs disclose packaging diapers and Muckenfuhs discloses using
compressed packaging "to reduce the volume normally occupied by flexible
articles ... thereby reducing the storage, transportation and handling costs"
compared to the "uncompressed condition." Muckenfuhs, 1:33-39. The
Examiner then uses Chesterfield's known compressed article packaging
method to compress the articles by vacuum packaging, i.e., negative
pressure. Ans. 8. Chesterfield is directed to "vacuum-packaging a product,
particularly a soft product" (Chesterfield 1 :43--46), and Appellant does not
4
Appeal 2017-009113
Application 14/641,273
explain adequately why a diaper is not a soft product that would benefit from
Chesterfield's vacuum packaging. Appellant has, thus, not apprised us of
error in the rejection of claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6
fall with claim 1. Br. 8. Independent claims 7 and 15 include substantially
similar limitations to those of claim 1, and Appellant does not present
additional arguments for the patentability of these claims but relies on the
same contentions as for claim 1. Br. 9-10. In connection with claims 8, 11,
12, and 14, Appellant relies on the same arguments as for claim 7. Br. 9.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 for the
same reasons as discussed for claim 1.
Re} ections 2 and 3
In arguing for the patentability of claims 4, 9, 10, and 13, Appellant
relies on the same arguments as for claim 1. Br. 8, 9. We sustain the
rejection of claims 4, 9, 10, and 13 for the same reasons as stated above for
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5