Ex Parte Desai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 201813905429 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/905,429 05/30/2013 23556 7590 08/06/2018 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR KeyurDesai 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. 64821121US01 3710 EXAMINER WALES, CHRISTINA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2018 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): Kimberlyclark. docketing@kcc.com Cindy.M.Trudell@kcc.com Tisha.Sutherland@kcc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEYUR DESAI, JIAN QIN, JEFFREY FRANK JURENA, FRANK PAUL ABUTO, SUSAN ELAINE SHAWVER, DONALD EUGENE WALDROUP, and DEBORAH JOY CALEWARTS Appeal2017-008364 Application 13/905,429 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a method for forming a collapsed foam film-like structure. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of forming a collapsed foam film-like structure, the method comprising: a) positioning a composition applicator adjacent to a heated non-permeable dryer surface; Appeal2017-008364 Application 13/905,429 b) producing a first frothed dispersion or frothed solution from a first dispersion or solution; c) applying the first frothed dispersion or frothed solution to the dryer surface; d) allowing the first frothed dispersion or frothed solution to convert to a first collapsed foam film-like structure; and e) scraping only the first collapsed foam film-like structure from the dryer surface. Neubauer The Reference US 2010/0255207 Al The Rejections Oct. 7, 2010 The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 11-13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Neubauer. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejection under 35 USC§ l 12(a) For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) written description requirement the applicant's specification must "convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner finds that the claim term "non-web fiber" lacks written descriptive support because "there is no mention of a non-web fiber in the specification" (Ans. 2). The Appellants' Specification states (Spec. 4:5-9): 2 Appeal2017-008364 Application 13/905,429 Differently shaped particles and fibers can be added into a dispersion, a solution, or a dispersion/solution mixture. The particles/fibers can also be added onto the dryer surface, when the film-like structure is not completely dried and/or at semi-molten state, to stay on the surface of the film-like structure to achieve different tactile aesthetics. The Specification provides a definition of "nonwoven" as "a class of fabrics generally produced by attaching fibers together. . . . by mechanical, chemical, thermal, adhesive, or solvent means, or any combination of these" (Spec. 3 :20-22), but does not indicate that the fibers added to the dispersion, solution or dispersion/solution mixture are in the form of a nonwoven web. 1 The Specification appears to use the term "fiber" according to its ordinary meaning, which is "[a] natural or synthetic filament, as of cotton or nylon, capable of being spun into yam. " 2 Thus, the Appellants' Specification provides written descriptive support for "non-web fiber." Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Rejection under 35 US.C. § 103 We need address only the independent claims (1 and 14). Those claims require scraping only a collapsed foam film-like structure from a dryer surface. Neubauer makes a polyolefin dispersion which "may be integrated with various downstream processes, such as foaming and spray drying, to create foams, films, coatings, powders, and other value added products" (i-f 142). "When preparing foams, it is often preferred to froth the 1 The Specification does not indicate why it includes a definition of "nonwoven." 2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 654 (Houghton Mifflin, 4th ed. 2000). 3 Appeal2017-008364 Application 13/905,429 dispersion" (i-f 143). When treating paper webs, "the additive composition containing the higher crystallinity polyolefin dispersion can be applied to the web topically or can be incorporated into the web by being pre-mixed with the fibers that are used to form the web" (i-f 193). "[T]he additive composition may be applied topically to the web during a creping process. . . . the additive composition may be sprayed onto the web or onto a heated dryer drum to adhere the web to the dryer drum. The web can then be creped from the dryer drum" (id.). The Examiner finds that "Neubauer describes mixing fibers in with the frothed layer (paragraph 193), making the 'frothed dispersion' of the instant claim, and scraping it off' (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes that "it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the fiber ('web') mixed with polyolefin dispersion ('additive composition') to the heated dryer drum since Neubauer describes these steps (all in paragraph 193)" (id.). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). The Examiner does not establish that Neubauer discloses mixing fibers in with a frothed layer or would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason, when mixing the additive composition with the fibers used to make a paper web (i-f 193), to add the additive composition in the form of a foam. Nor does the Examiner establish that a paper web formed from that mixture would be a collapsed foam film-like structure according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term consistent with the Appellants' Specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("'[D]uring examination proceedings, claims 4 Appeal2017-008364 Application 13/905,429 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."' (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejections of claims 11-13 and 16 under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Neubauer are reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation