10836489 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2011)

Ex Parte Datta

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 9, 2011

10836489 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2011)

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. 10/836,489 04/29/2004 Paul J. Datta 20,220 1590 23556 7590 05/09/2011 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3764 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2011 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 PAUL J. DATTA ____________ Appeal 2009-012183 Application 10/836,489 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012183 Application 10/836,489 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Paul J. Datta (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 3, 4, 8- 16, 18-21, 25-31, and 35-37 as being unpatentable over Shingu (US 6,626,881 B2, iss. Sep. 30, 2003) and Schaar (US 3,943,930, iss. Mar. 16, 1976); claims 5, 22, and 32 as being unpatentable over Shingu, Schaar, and Ohnishi (US 6,420,627 B1, iss. Jul. 16, 2002); and claims 6, 7, 23, 24, 33, 34, and 38 as being unpatentable over Shingu, Schaar, and Dragoo (US 6,120,632, iss. Sep. 19, 2000). Claims 2, 17, and 39 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002). The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of folding disposable absorbent articles and to folded absorbent articles. Spec. 1:5-7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of folding a disposable absorbent article, the article having a longitudinal centerline, transversely spaced side margins, a front region, a rear region, and a crotch region which extends between and connects the front region and the rear region, a pair of ears associated with the side margins in at least one of the front and rear regions, a fastener adapted to removably attach the front region to the rear region, and an unfolded configuration, the method of folding comprising: forming at least a first and second longitudinally extending folds in each side margin, the first and second longitudinally extending folds configured such that at least a portion of each of the ears extends transversely outboard of all longitudinally extending folds in each side margin. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2009-012183 Application 10/836,489 3 OPINION The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to modify Shingu’s diaper so as to have at least portions of the ears extending outboard of all of the longitudinal folds, and the transverse edges defined by the outermost folds. The Examiner found, and Appellant does not dispute, that Shingu describes the subject matter of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 16, and 29, with the exception of a portion of the ears extending transversely outboard of all of the folds (or the transverse edges defined by the outermost folds). See Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Schaar teaches an absorbent article folded such that the ears (tape strips 41a and 41b) extend transversely outboard of the longitudinal folds of the side margins. Ans. 4. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to fold the diaper of Shingu such that the ears extend outboard of the folded side margins, because this would have the predictable result of providing an area of the article that can be easily gripped by the user while the diaper is in the folded configuration for unfolding the side margins. Id. The reason articulated by the Examiner (to provide an area that facilitates gripping of the ears by the user for unfolding the diaper from the folded configuration) for modifying Shingu’s diaper so that at least a portion of each ear extends transversely outboard of all of the folds (or the transverse edges defined by the outermost said folds) has rational underpinning. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Schaar to make the modification proposed by the Examiner because “[t]he folds of Schaar are not meant to be unfolded.” App. Br. 6. Appellant does Appeal 2009-012183 Application 10/836,489 4 not present any separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, 8-15, 18-21, 25-28, 30, 31, and 35-37. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant’s assertion that the folds of Schaar are not meant to be unfolded is not accurate. Schaar explicitly describes unfolding the diaper during placement on an infant. Col. 2, ll. 5-7; col. 3, ll. 5-10; fig. 5. Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 29, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8-15, 18-21, 25-31, and 35-37, which fall with their independent claims, should be reversed. In contesting the rejections of claims 5, 22, and 32 as being unpatentable over Shingu, Schaar, and Ohnishi and of claims 6, 7, 23, 24, 33, 34, and 38 as being unpatentable over Shingu, Schaar, and Dragoo, Appellant simply relies on the argument presented for claims 1, 16, and 29. For the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive of error in the rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-012183 Application 10/836,489 5 hh