11934406 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

Ex Parte Dalal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 2017

11934406 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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. 11/934,406 11/02/2007 Urmish Popatlal Dalai 10619M 5632 27752 7590 02/23/2017 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER KOKKINOS, NICHOLAS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): centraldocket. im @ pg. com pair_pg @ firsttofile. com mayer.jk @ pg. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte URMISH POPATLAL DALAL and ROBIN LYNN McKIERNAN Appeal 2016-000577 Application 11/934,406 Technology Center 1700 Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Nov. 2, 2007, amended Apr. 26, 2010; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Aug. 21, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated Jan. 16, 2015; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated Aug. 12, 2015. 2 Appellants identify The Procter & Gamble Company as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-000577 Application 11/934,406 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to adhesive fastening systems, such as may be used to secure a diaper. Spec. 1. More particularly, the subject matter relates to “adhesive fastening systems having a non-tacky adherent or a non-tacky adherend in a patterned or three-dimensional configuration that may be peeled apart with a low force.” Id. Sole independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A non-tacky patterned adhesive system comprising: an engaging member having an engaging surface comprising: a plurality of engaging projections disposed on the engaging surface; a plurality of engaging recessions defined by the plurality of engaging projections disposed on the engaging surface; and a first non-tacky adherent disposed on the engaging projections and the engaging recessions of the engaging surface; and a receiving member having a receiving surface comprising a first non-tacky adherend disposed thereon; wherein one or more of the non-tacky adherent and non- tacky adherend are patterned; and wherein the engaging member is engageable with the receiving member such that the engaging surface exhibits adhesion to the receiving surface when engaged. Claims 1,2, and 5—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ashton3 and Tritsch.4 3 US 2005/0177127 Al, published Aug. 11, 2005 (“Ashton”). 4 US 4,063,559, issued Dec. 20, 1977 (“Tritsch”). 2 Appeal 2016-000577 Application 11/934,406 DISCUSSION Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group. Br. 5—10. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal based on the representative claim alone. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Ashton discloses an adhesive fastening system comprising an adherent and an adherend disposed respectively on an engaging member and a receiving member, such that the engaging member is engageable with the receiving member. Compare Final Act. 3 (citing Ashton 19, Fig. 4) with Br. 5—10. The Examiner further finds that Tritsch teaches providing a stretchable adhesive fastener with a “partible protective cover” which, when stretched, forms projections and corresponding recessions to selectively expose portions of an underlying adhesive. Final Act. 4 (citing Tritsch col. 2,11. 30— 45; Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have had reason to incorporate Tritsch’s protective cover design into Ashton’s adhesive fastener to prevent inadvertent sticking. Id. Appellants argue that the projections formed by Tritsch’s protective cover are disposed over the adhesive layer and, for that reason, Tritsch fails to teach projections with an adherent “disposed thereon.” Br. 7. Claim 1 recites, “a first non-tacky adherent disposed on the engaging projections’'’ (emphasis added), without specifying a particular surface or part of the projections on which the adherent is disposed. Thus, giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation, as we must, we are not persuaded that claim 1 precludes Tritsch’s arrangement in which an adherent 3 Appeal 2016-000577 Application 11/934,406 is disposed on an underside of the projections formed by the protective cover. Appellants additionally argue that Tritsch’s substantially continuous adhesive layer is not “patterned” as claimed. Id. at 8. The Examiner explains that Tritsch’s cover layer, when stretched, exposes a “distinct pattern” of adhesive corresponding to the pattern of openings formed in the cover layer. Ans. 7. Appellants did not submit a Reply Brief in dispute of the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard. Nor do Appellants point us to any part of the Specification which would lead the skilled artisan to narrowly interpret the term, “patterned,” in claim 1 so as to exclude adhesive patterns—such as those in Tritsch—which selectively are formed through use of the fastener. Appellants additionally argue that some portions of Tritsch’s adhesive layer would remain unexposed upon stretching and therefore would not engage a surface of the receiving member. We do not see, and Appellants do not identify, any recitation in claim 1 which would require all portions of the adherent to contact a surface of the receiving member. Lastly, Appellants contend that no motivation exists for combining the references in the manner articulated in the ground of rejection. Br. 8—10. Particularly, Appellants argue that Tritsch provides the disclosed protective cover “to prevent the adhesive from prematurely sticking to another surface,” whereas Ashton’s adherent/adherend combination already solve that problem because purportedly they are designed to adhere only to like compounds. Id. at 9. The Examiner responds that the above-mentioned solutions provided respectively in Ashton and Tritsch would have been expected to work together toward the same objective of preventing 4 Appeal 2016-000577 Application 11/934,406 inadvertent or undesired sticking. Ans. 8—10. We agree. Even if Ashton’s adherent and adherend materials are relatively selective in their adhesion to one another, the skilled artisan still would reasonably expect Tritsch’s protective cover to provide the advantage of preventing premature or inadvertent adhesion between Ashton’s adhesive layers. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not present any additional argument particularly directed to claims 2 and 5—10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5—10 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. AFFIRMED 5