Ex Parte Fujkawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13850357 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/850,357 03/26/2013
27752 7590 05/02/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi Fujkawa
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.
AA833M 2319
EXAMINER
DO, NHAT CHIEU Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI FUJKA WA, TAKE SHI OGATA,
HIROYUKI UENO, and NORMAN GOROSPE JUGUILON
Appeal2017-008112
Application 13/850,357
Technology Center 3700
Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JILL D. HILL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-008112
Application 13/850,357
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an elastic-member cutting roll system and
absorbent article made therefrom. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
Ross
Ando
1. A cutting roll system for cutting a plurality of
elastic strands in a region, the cutting roll system
compnsmg:
an anvil roll; and
a cutting roll adjacent the anvil roll, the
cutting roll adapted to rotate about a roll axis, and
wherein the cutting roll comprises a knife block;
wherein the knife block comprises at least
two rows of knife edges, each of the at least two rows
of knife edges having at least two knife edges arrayed
linearly parallel to the roll axis;
each of the at least two rows of knife edges
circumferentially spaced apart from each other;
the at least two knife edges oriented at
angles which do not match with a roll axis direction
or a roll circumferential direction, the roll
circumferential direction being perpendicular to the
roll axis direction; and
the at least two knife edges in the knife
block staggered with each other in the roll axis
direction such that each elastic strand in the region is
cut no more than once.
REFERENCES
us 3,823,633
US 7,530,972 B2
2
July 16, 1974
May 12, 2009
Appeal2017-008112
Application 13/850,357
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ando. Final Act. 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ando in view of Ross. Id. at 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3-Anticipated by Ando
Appellants argue claims 1-3 as a group. Br. 2--4. We select claim 1
as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). Appellants' sole
argument on appeal concerns the "knife edge" limitation of claim 1.
Specifically, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 3-
4) that the sides of Ando's diamond-shaped projections 42 correspond to the
claimed knife edges. Br. 2--4. Appellants do not, however, dispute the
Examiner's construction of "knife edge" (Ans. 6), or offer their own
construction thereof. Nor do Appellants explain why the edges of Ando's
diamond-shaped projections would not correspond to the claimed knife
edges under the Examiner's construction. Thus, we are not apprised of error
in the Examiner's findings, analysis, and conclusions supporting this
rejection, which is sustained.
Claim 4-Unpatentable over Ando and Ross
In support of the patentability of claim 4, which depends from claim
1, Appellants rely on their previously made assertion that Ando does not
disclose the knife edges recited in claim 1. Br. 4--5. Because Appellants
have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Ando discloses
all of claim 1 's limitations, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Ando and Ross.
3
Appeal2017-008112
Application 13/850,357
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4