Ex Parte Hada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

12345174 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/345,174 12/29/2008
23556 7590 03/08/2016
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC,
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Stephen Hada
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.
64471623US01 7376
EXAMINER
HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK STEPHEN HADA, JAMES LEO BAGGOT, and
ROBERTEUGENEKRAUTKRAMER
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Stephen Hada et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--16, and 18-20,
which are the pending claims. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., as the real
party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of perforating a paper web comprising:
(a) carrying a moving paper web over a rotating pattern
roll having protruding perforation elements which protrude from
the surface of the pattern roll and are arranged on the surface of
the pattern roll in a perforation pattern, whereby one side of the
paper web is in contact with and supported by the surface of the
pattern roll and wherein the angle of wrap of the paper web
around the pattern roll is about 180 degrees or greater, said paper
web and the surface of the rotating pattern roll moving at the
same speed; and
(b) passing the paper web through nips formed between
the protruding perforation elements and a moving anvil surface
which is traveling at a speed that is faster than the speed of the
paper web, whereby the paper web is locally sheared and
perforated in the nips to create a perforation pattern in the web.
Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones (US 6,420,625 Bl, issued
July 16, 2002) and Blenke (US 2007/0240586 Al, published Oct. 18, 2007).
2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McMahon (US 4,640,165, issued Feb. 3, 1987), Cole, Jr.
(US 5,151,077, issued Sept. 29, 1992), and Spengler (US 3,859,879, issued
Jan. 14, 1975).
3. Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jones, Blenke, and Giacometti (US 6,007 ,468, issued Dec.
28, 1999).
2
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
4. Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jones, Blenke, and Couturier (US 6,296,601 Bl, issued
Oct. 2, 2001 ).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Obviousness over Jones and Blenke
Claim 1 recites, in part, "said paper web and the surface of the
rotating pattern roll moving at the same speed," and "a moving anvil surface
which is traveling at a speed that is faster than the speed of the paper web."
Br. 8 (Claims App.; emphasis added). According to these limitations, claim
1 requires the anvil surface to travel at a faster speed than the surface of the
pattern roll, and the paper web and the surface of the rotating roll to move at
the same speed.
The Examiner finds that Jones "utilizes a faster speed of rotation for
the anvil roll as claimed .... " Final Act. 2 (citing Jones, col. 11, lines 15+;
Figs. 5---6). The Examiner finds Jones does not disclose that "the angle of
the wrap of the paper web around the pattern roll is about 180 degrees or
greater." Id. The Examiner relies on Blenke for teaching this limitation. Id.
at 3.
Appellants contend that combining Jones and Blenke would not result
in "a method in which the paper web and the surface of the rotating pattern
roll move at the same speed or a method in which the paper web and anvil
move at different speeds." Br. 3 (emphasis added). Appellants further
contend that "[b ]oth Jones and Blenke are completely silent on the relative
speed of the web to the rotating members." Id.
Figure 5 of Jones shows an apparatus including a pattern roll 322 and
an anvil roll 324 used to form apertures in a film 314 unwound from a film
3
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
unwind 312.2 Jones discloses that "the pattern roll 422 will usually run at a
faster speed than the anvil roll 424. However, in certain instances, it might
be desirable to run the rolls at the same speed or run the anvil roll 424 faster
than the pattern roll 422." Jones, col. 11, 11. 46-53 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that Jones discloses controlling the web
speed. Ans. 4. Jones discloses that "[i]n order to manipulate the properties
of the apertured film formed in the process, it is advantageous to control the
speed of the unwind 412." Jones, col. 11, 11. 7-10. Jones also discloses that
"[t]he winding speed, like the unwind speed, might also affect the properties
of the apertured film." Id. at col. 12, 11. 5-7.
Although Jones does disclose controlling the unwinding speed of the
film to manipulate the properties of the apertured film, the Examiner does
not identify any disclosure in Jones showing that the surface of the anvil roll
travels at a faster speed than the film or the surface of the pattern roll moves
at the same speed as the film. In fact, the Examiner determines that"[ o ]ne
of ordinary skill in the art could easily control the web speed at the
rotational surface speed of the anvil roller without undue experimentation
and expect the same result differential speeds of a pattern and platen roll to
shear and perforate as claimed (as disclosed by Jones)." Ans. 4 (emphasis
added). The Examiner also determines that "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would easily recognize that using the anvil roller to carry the web material
2 In relation to Figure 5, Jones describes a film unwind 412, film 414, pattern
roll 422, and anvil roll 424. See Jones, col. 11, 11. 6-7, 16-20. Based on this
description, it is our understanding that film unwind 412, film 414, pattern
roll 422, and anvil roll 424 correspond to the elements 312, 314, 322, and
324, respectively, shown in Figure 5.
4
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
(i.e. at the same speed) would minimize undesired complications identified
supra." Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
These statements appear to indicate that the Examiner misconstrued
the disputed limitations in claim 1. Claim 1 requires "the surface of the
rotating pattern roll," not the "anvil surface," to move at the same speed as
the paper web. Claim 1 further requires the anvil roll surface to travel at a
faster speed, not the same speed, as that of the paper web. The Examiner
does not establish that Jones discloses or suggests the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that combining the
teachings of Jones and Blenke would result in the method recited in claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 4--7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16,
and 18-20 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Jones and Blenke.
Rejection 2----0bviousness over McMahon, Cole, Jr., and Spengler
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. However, claim 8 is rejected based on
the combination of only McMahon; Cole; Jr.; and Spengler; and not also
Jones and Blenke applied to the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 4. For claim
8, the Examiner finds that McMahon does not disclose a moving anvil belt,
and relies on Spengler for disclosing this feature. Id. The Examiner does
not explain how Cole, Jr. is applied to the rejection. Id. The Examiner does
not establish that the combination of McMahon, Cole, Jr., and Spengler
discloses all limitations of claim 1, or explain why it would have been
obvious to modify the combination to meet the requirements of claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
McMahon, Cole, Jr., and Spengler.
5
Appeal2014-002651
Application 12/345,174
Rejection 3---0bviousness over Jones, Blenke, and Giacometti
Rejection 4--0bviousness over Jones, Blenke, and Couturier
The Examiner's application of Giacometti to the rejection of claims
10-13 (Final Act. 4--5) and Couturier to the rejection of claims 12 and 14
(id. at 5) does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-13 as unpatentable
over Jones, Blenke, and Giacometti, or the rejection of claims 12 and 14 as
unpatentable over Jones, Blenke, and Couturier,
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--16, and 18-20 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6