Ex Parte Davis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 9, 2006

10252175 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES HAROLD DAVIS, NEZAM MALAKOUTI
and TERRILL ALAN YOUNG
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4-6,
8-12, 14-16, 18-21, 23, 24, 26-31 and 33-39. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for manufacturing a disposable fluid-handling
article, the disposable fluid-handling article
comprising at least two primary components made
continuously from bulk starting materials, the method
comprising the steps of:
a) feeding a first polymeric bulk starting material
into at least one first polymeric extrusion
apparatus disposed adjacent to a first collecting
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
2
surface moving at a first velocity in relation to
the first polymeric extrusion apparatus;

b) extruding a first molten stream of a first
polymeric material from the first polymeric
extrusion apparatus;
c) continuously forming a first primary component of
the disposable fluid-handling article from the
first molten stream;

d) feeding a second polymeric bulk starting material
into at least one second polymeric extrusion
apparatus disposed adjacent to a second collecting
surface moving at a second velocity in relation to
the second polymeric extrusion apparatus;

e) extruding a second molten stream of a second
polymeric material from the second polymeric
extrusion apparatus, wherein the second molten
stream comprises a film;

f) continuously forming a second primary component
of the disposable fluid-handling article from the
second molten stream;
g) joining the first and second primary components
into a composite web, wherein the first primary
component overlaps at least partially with the
second primary component; and

h) severing the composite web in a direction
generally perpendicular to a machine direction so
as to form the disposable fluid-handling article.

The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Kobylivker et al. (Kobylivker) 6,072,005 Jun. 6, 2000
Allen 6,502,615 Jan. 7, 2003
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
3
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for
making a disposable fluid-handling article comprising the steps
of continuously forming first and second components from first
and second polymeric bulk starting materials and joining the
first and second components into a continuous web.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Kobylivker.
Appellants have not submitted separate arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection.
The principal argument advanced by appellants is that Allen,
although forming an article by coextruding at least two polymeric
sheets, does not disclose that the back sheet is a film.
Appellants point out that Allen discloses “[b]ack sheets such as
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
4
film do not possess air permeability and therefore are not
readily adapted for receiving meltblown fibers thereon” (column
6, lines 31-33). Appellants maintain, therefore, that there
would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the process of Allen in accordance with the
disclosure of Kobylivker.
The flaw in appellants’ argument is that it is not germane
to the claimed subject matter on appeal. Appealed claim 1, with
which all the appealed claims stand or fall, only defines joining
first and second primary components, with no recitation that
either component is a sheet or a film. Accordingly, while we
agree with the examiner that Kobylivker evidences the obviousness
of manufacturing an article by joining first and second primary
components formed from first and second extruded streams of
polymeric material, we find that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the
disclosure of Allen alone. We perceive no limitation in claim
1 that would have been nonobvious in light of the Allen
disclosure, and appellants have pointed to none. Contrary to the
implication of appellants’ arguments, appealed claim 1, as
drafted, does not exclude the method steps disclosed by Allen.
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
5
Appellants acknowledge in their reply brief that the
alternative embodiment depicted in figure 8 of Allen utilizes a
back film sheet, but appellants emphasize that such film is not
produced in situ, or in line, but rather is dispensed from a
roll. However, as conceded by appellants, “Allen was therefore
aware of the ability to produce such films in situ using a
station similar to bottom cover station 202 (Fig. 1)” (page 2 of
reply brief, last paragraph). While appellants conclude that
“one can only surmise that Allen, in weighing the pros and cons
of doing so, believed that no overall advantage would be
obtained” from forming the bottom film in situ, we are persuaded
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
understood that the back sheet film of Allen’s alternative
embodiment could be provided by either in situ formation or a
separate dispensing roll. We find that the disclosure of Allen’s
first embodiment, along with the Kobylivker disclosure, provide
ample evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to form appellants’ first and second primary
components in situ.
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
6
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:hh
Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
7
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIV.
WINTON HILL TECH. CTR. - BOX 161
6110 CENTER HILL AVE.
CINCINNATI, OH 45224