Ex Parte Goltz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

14595683 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

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