Ex Parte Denome et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11784675 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK WILLIAM DENOME
and DENNIS ALLEN BECKHOLT
____________

Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Frank William Denome et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a process for making a multi-
compartment pouch.
Claims 1 and 2, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A process for making a multi-compartment
water-soluble pouch having at least three
compartments and wherein at least one of the
compartments contains a composition in liquid
form, the process comprising the steps of:
a) providing a mould with at least two
recesses;
b) drawing a first film into the mould to
form at least two open compartments in the at least
two recesses;
c) filling the open compartments;
d) pin-pricking the first film to create a pin-
hole;
e) drawing a second film over the open
compartments to close those compartments and to
form a new open compartment, wherein the second
film directly covers the pin-hole;
f) filling the open compartment formed from
the second film; and
g) placing a closure film over the new filled
open compartment to close it.

2. A process according to claim 1 wherein the
at least two recesses are connected by means of a
bridge region and wherein the pin-hole is placed
on the film portion over the bridge region.

Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675

3
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fisher US 7,013,623 B2 Mar. 21, 2006

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fisher.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Fisher or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3 and 4 – Anticipation
Fisher
The steps of claim 1 which are in dispute are “providing a mould with
at least two recesses,” and “drawing a first film into the mould to form at
least two open compartments in the at least two recesses.” The Examiner is
of the view that “[t]he inclusion of a singular die comprising multiple
moulds as discussed by Fisher anticipates appellant’s claims.” Ans. 5.
Appellants’ only arguments with regard to claim 1 are that “[n]othing in
Fisher teaches or suggests moulds having multiple recesses or steps
involving applying films to multiple moulds,” that “[t]he Examiner has
further erred in concluding that the term ‘mould’ and ‘recess’ are equivalent
. . . to conclude that the recess and the mould are equivalent would vitiate
one or more of the claim terms,” and that “[t]he Examiner has erred in
concluding that the first and second compartments described in Fisher relate
to compartments being formed across more than one mould.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675

4
Fisher is directed to a process for the production of water-soluble
pouches. Col. 1, ll. 12-13. The process is described as
making use of a die having a series of moulds and forming from
a film, open pouches in these moulds to which product can be
added . . . . A preferred process herein is a horizontal,
continuous process whereby a horizontally positioned portion
of an endless surface with moulds (in two directions), which
moves continuously in one direction, is used to form the
pouches, namely whereby a film is continuously fed onto this
surface, and then, the film is drawn into the moulds on the
horizontal portion of the surface, to continuously form a web of
open pouches positioned in horizontal position, to which
product is added, whilst horizontal and moving continuously.
Col. 3, ll. 35-49; (emphasis added).
With regard to the labels placed upon various components in the
method, it appears that, interpreting Fisher’s “die” to be the equivalent of the
“mould” recited in claim 1 and Fisher’s “series of moulds” to be the
equivalent of the claimed “at least two recesses,” as the Examiner has done,
the passage set forth infra anticipates the subject matter in dispute in claim
1. While Appellants have argued that the establishment of such
equivalencies is incorrect, Appellants have provided no evidence in support
of this conclusion, and therefore the Examiner’s position with regard thereto
stands uncontroverted. In addition, the argument relating to forming
compartments across more than one mould is not persuasive because no such
limitation is recited in claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Since Appellants have chosen
not to separately argue the patentability of claims 3 and 4, which depend
from claim 1, the rejection of these claims also is sustained.

Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675

5
Claim 2 – Anticipation Or, In The Alternative, Obviousness
Fisher
Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement that “the at least two recesses
[recited in claim 1] are connected by means of a bridge region and wherein
the pin-hole [recited in claim 1] is placed in the film portion over the bridge
region.” The Examiner admits that “Fisher et al. do not directly disclose
perforating along a bridge region,” but “[i]t is considered anticipated or in
the alternative would have been obvious to perforate/pin prick the first film
in an area between cavities (bridge region) for enabling suction to extend to
the second film without interference with a filled product on the first film
within the cavity.” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that “Fisher fails to teach or
suggest a bridge region or any similar feature,” and therefore Fisher fails to
anticipate the subject matter of claim 2 or render it obvious. Br. 3.
While Fisher teaches that the film is drawn into the moulds to
continuously form a web of open pouches (Col. 3, ll. 45-48), and that the
first film is perforated to allow suction to draw the second film into the
mould (Col. 2, ll. 23-25), the only detail provided regarding location is that
“[p]referably, the perforation(s) in the film is (are) aligned with one or more
vacuum holes in the mold.” Col. 2, ll. 36-38. The Examiner has admitted,
supra, that Fisher does not “directly disclose” perforating the film along a
bridge region, which in and of itself negates a rejection on the basis of
anticipation, in the absence of persuasive argument that the reference
nevertheless teaches such placement of the perforations. As for the question
of obviousness, the Examiner has taken the position that areas between
mould cavities would be of high stress and therefore are considered to be
“bridge regions,” where it would have been obvious to locate the
Appeal 2011-000690
Application 11/784,675

6
perforations. Ans. 4. However, even assuming, arguendo, the existence of
regions of high stress between the mould cavities, the Examiner has
provided no evidence or persuasive argument why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have chosen to locate the perforations in the “bridge” regions.
The rejections of claim 2 on the basis of anticipation and of
obviousness are not sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 as being anticipated by Fisher is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Fisher or, in the
alternative, as being unpatentable over Fisher, is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh