Ex Parte Dovertie

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2011

10905161 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RALPH DOVERTIE
____________________

Appeal 2009-009702
Application 10/905,161
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009702
Application 10/905,161
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ralph Dovertie (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pelley (US 5,614,147, iss. Mar. 25, 1997). Appellant’s
representative presented oral argument on February 8, 2011. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method of forming a composite web
containing at least one layer of particulate material and at least one layer of
fibrous material for use as an absorbent structure in absorbent articles. Spec.
1, para. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of forming a composite web structure containing at
least one layer of particulate material and at least one layer of
fibrous material, said web structure being adapted for use as an
absorbent structure in an absorbent article, the method
comprising:
depositing the at least one layer of fibrous material and
the at least one layer of particulate material in consecutive steps
on a moving foraminous support to form layers on top of each
other,
feeding an airborn [sic: airborne] stream of particulate
material to an applicator chamber in a first flow direction at a
high speed of about 25 m/s or higher, said applicator chamber
having an outlet opening located adjacent to said foraminous
support and [sic: configured such] that the airborn [sic:
airborne] stream of particulate material when entering said
applicator chamber is allowed to expand and to hit a wall
portion in said applicator chamber which is oriented at an angle
between about 90 and about 125° to said first flow direction,
whereby the airborn [sic: airborne] stream of particulate
material is forced to change flow direction to a second flow
Appeal 2009-009702
Application 10/905,161
3
direction, resulting in a reduction of speed of the airborn [sic:
airborne] stream of particulate material as it exits an outlet
opening of the applicator chamber, wherein the airborn [sic:
airborne] stream of particulate material that exits the outlet
opening of the applicator chamber is directly deposited on the
moving foraminous support.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
Appellant’s independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a step of feeding
an airborne stream of particulate material to an applicator chamber such that
the airborne stream of particulate material when entering the applicator
chamber is allowed to expand. The Examiner’s rejection is grounded in part
on a finding that Pelley discloses this feature. See Ans. 6. Specifically, the
Examiner found that “as the powder material when leaving hopper 24 to
enter the apparatus 36, enters tube 34 where it is allowed to expand (Figure
1).” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding with respect to
the expansion is not supported by Pelley. See Reply Br. 2. After Pelley’s
particulate powder material is entrained within a stream of air, so as to form
an “airborn[e] stream of particulate material,” as called for in the claim, the
airborne stream is transmitted to flexible hose 34 and then to nozzle 38. Col.
5, ll. 21-30; figs. 1, 4. As noted by Appellant on page 2 of the Reply Brief,
the inlet to flexible hose 34 is depicted in Pelley’s figure 1 as converging,
such that the stream would seemingly contract or converge, rather than
expand. Pelley also depicts the nozzle 38 as converging. Fig. 4. Further, as
Appeal 2009-009702
Application 10/905,161
4
pointed out by Appellant on pages 5-6 of the Appeal Brief, Pelley describes
that “[t]he tapered shape of nozzle 38 and rectangular cross-section of outlet
42 combine to focus the shape of particulate powder material exiting outlet
42 into a concentrated and well-defined continuous stream of powder
material.” Col. 5, ll. 34-38. This description evinces an objective to focus
or concentrate, rather than expand, the stream of particulate powder material
in the nozzle 38. Accordingly, it is not apparent, and the Examiner has not
attempted to articulate a reason, why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to modify the flexible hose 34 or nozzle 38 so as to
permit expansion of the airborne stream of particulate powder material.
The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter of
claim 1, as well as claims 2-15, which depend from claim 1, relies on an
erroneous finding that the stream of particulate powder material is permitted
to expand in (or as it enters) flexible hose 34. The Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case that the method of claim 1, including a step of
feeding an airborne stream of particulate material to an applicator chamber
such that the airborne stream of particulate material when entering the
applicator chamber is allowed to expand, would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. We
do not sustain the rejection.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-009702
Application 10/905,161
5
hh

BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404