Ex Parte Goltz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201814595683 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/595,683 01/13/2015 109963 7590 05/30/2018 GP-Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ryan Anthony Goltz 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. 30367 (38201-0252) 8099 EXAMINER GALLION, MICHAELE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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): patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com gplawpatents@gapac.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte RYAN ANTHONY GOLTZ, MARK EDWIN PETERS, ALAN JOSEPH JOHNSON, WSTIN MATTHEW OLIPHANT, and PAUL JAMES RUTHVEN Appeal2018-002364 Application 14/595,683 1 Technology Center 3600 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-7, 24, and 25. Claims 8-13 are canceled. Claims 14--23 and 26 have been identified as allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants state that Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP is the real party in interest and is a subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific LLC, which is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-002364 Application 14/595,683 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Appellants' claims are directed to sheet product dispensers and related methods for automatically loading a roll of sheet product in a dispenser. Spec. ,r 102. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A sheet product dispenser for dispensing sheet product from a roll of sheet product having a sealed tail, the dispenser compnsmg: a roll interface configured to engage and at least partially support the roll of sheet product, the roll interface comprising a separating member configured to engage and unseal the sealed tail; a feed roller assembly configured to dispense sheet product from the roll of sheet product, the feed roller assembly comprising a feed roller configured to engage and at least partially support the roll of sheet product; and a controller operable to initiate driving of the feed roller and rotation of the roll of sheet product such that the sealed tail is unsealed by engaging the separating member. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Masamichi (JP 9,075,258 A; publ. Mar. 25, 1997). Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view ofMasamichi and Formon et al. (US 2001/0001475 Al; May 24, 2 00 1) (hereinafter "Forman"). Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Masamichi and Bauer et al. (US 4,960,248; Oct. 2, 1990) (hereinafter "Bauer"). 2 Appeal2018-002364 Application 14/595,683 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a sheet product dispenser that includes "a separating member configured to engage and unseal the sealed tail" of a roll of sheet product. Interpreting that limitation, the Examiner concludes that "configured to engage and unseal the sealed tail" is functional language such that the corresponding structures in the prior art need only be capable of performing the claimed function. Final Act. 8. As such, the Examiner finds Masamichi discloses the claimed separating member with Masamichi' s back member IC in Masamichi's Figure 1, copied below. Masamichi' s Figure 1 Masamichi's Figure 1 depicts an automatic paper-roll dispenser with a roll of paper product in contact with a paper feeding means 4 and a back member 1 C. According to the Examiner, back member 1 C is "capable of frictionally separating the tail end from the roll via the top surface" because, "[f]or example, the tail end of the paper roll could be attached to the roll with a very weak structure making it easy for the frictional surface of the separating member to apply a frictional force on the surface of the tail end to detail the tail end from the roll." Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2018-002364 Application 14/595,683 As argued by Appellants, though, Masamichi does not describe back member 1 C nor a sealed tail of a roll of sheet paper. See Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 3--4. Without a description of back member IC or other evidence that Masamichi is capable of unsealing a sealed tail of a roll of sheet paper, the Examiner's findings rely on speculation and lack adequate evidence to establish that Masamichi discloses the back member as claimed. See, e.g., Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 640 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rejecting arguments premised on speculation of the capabilities of the prior art under hypothetical circumstances). As such, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not adequately established that Masamichi anticipates independent claim 1. We therefore reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-7, 24, and 25, each of which depends from claim 1 and relies upon Masamichi for the "separating member" limitation. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 24, and 25. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation