Ex Parte Homoelle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13269070 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/269,070 10/07/2011 Dieter HOMOELLE HOMOELLE ET AL - 2 5400
25889 7590
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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 DIETER HOMOELLE and GEORG BALDAUF
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 5—9. A hearing was held on
October 12, 2017.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 7, 2011, the
Final Office Action mailed April 1, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed October 2, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed
February 1, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 29, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nordenia Deutschland
Gronau Gmbh. Appeal Br. 1.
3 The record includes a transcript of the hearing (“Tr.”).
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
The subject matter on appeal relates to a laminate material element for
a hook-and-loop closure. Spec. 1. The laminate element forms the female
part of a hook-and-loop closure particularly for use on diapers. Id. at 1—2.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief,
is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. Laminate material element for a hook-and-loop
closure, having a carrier (1) and a textile knitted fabric (2)
laminated onto the carrier (1), which fabric has warp strands (3)
that run in the knitting direction (W), as well as loops (4)
incorporated into them, suitable for making a connection with
hook-and-loop hooks, whereby the carrier (1) and the knitted
fabric (2) are not connected with one another over their full area,
whereby an adhesive forms a lattice pattern, with adhesive strips
(6a, 6b) that intersect perpendicularly and cells (7) that are free
of adhesive, and whereby the one group of the adhesive strips
(6a) runs in the knitting direction (W), wherein multiple warp
strands (3) are provided between two adjacent adhesive strips
(6a) that run in the knitting direction (W), wherein the adhesive
strips (6a, 6b), which intersect perpendicularly, run straight and
therefore form a lattice pattern with rectangular adhesive-free
cells (7), whereby the warp strands (3) that are disposed between
two adjacent adhesive strips (6a) that run in the knitting direction
(W) are attached only to the adhesive strips (6b) that run
perpendicular to the knitting direction (W), wherein the distance
(a) between adjacent adhesive strips (6a) that run in the knitting
direction (W) amounts to between 7 mm and 20 mm, wherein the
distance (b) between adjacent warp strands (3) lies between
1.2 mm and 2.2 mm, and wherein the width of the adhesive strips
(6a, 6b) of the one group of adhesive strips that runs in the
knitting direction (W), as well as the width of the adhesive strips
that run perpendicular to the adhesive strips of the one group lies
between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 5—9 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Baldauf (US 2006/0182927 Al, published
August 17, 2006) (“Baldauf’) in view of Horn et al. (US 2006/0080810 Al,
published April 20, 2006) (“Horn”). Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 2—5.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejection essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the
Final Action and Answer. We add the following.
Baldauf discloses a laminate material element for a hook and loop
closure, for example, a female part of a hook and loop closure. Baldauf
3, 24. The Examiner finds that Baldauf discloses all of claim 1 ’s
limitations except: (a) the adhesive strips or lines form rectangular cells,
(b) the distance between the adhesive strips running in the machine (i.e., knit
or warp) direction is between 7 mm and 20 mm, (c) the distance between
adjacent scrim filaments in the machine (i.e., knit or warp) direction is
1.2 mm—2.2 mm, and (d) the adhesive strips in both the machine and cross­
machine direction are between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm wide. Final Act. 3^4.
The Examiner finds that, like Baldauf, Horn discloses a knitted fabric
female fastening laminate (i.e., loop) for a hook and loop fastener where the
loop laminate includes a knit fabric, an underlying substrate (i.e., carrier),
and a bonding layer. Final Act. 4 (citing Abstract). Horn discloses that the
bonding layer comprises a first plurality of nonintersecting bond lines and a
second plurality of non-intersecting bond lines which are combined to form
3
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
a cell pattern of perpendicular intersecting bond lines. Horn Abstract. This
bonding layer arrangement is depicted in Horn’s Figures 9a—9c, 18a, and
18b, which show parallel lines in the machine and cross machine directions
(e.g., warp and weft directions) to form rectangular or square cell patterns.
Horn || 89, 98; Figs. 9a—9c, 18a—18b. The Examiner finds that Horn
teaches that the adhesive line width may range from about 0.1 mm to about
10 mm, and the gap (i.e., adhesive-free spacing) between adhesive lines may
range from about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm. Final Act. 5 (citing Horn 1117).
Based upon Baldauf s suggestion that the adhesive stripes may be
straight, parallel, and intersecting to form cells, the Examiner finds that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Baldauf s adhesive
pattern with perpendicularly intersecting straight adhesive lines, the lines
having a width ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm and a gap
between adjacent adhesive strips ranging from about 0.1 mm to 15 mm, as
described by Horn. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to select a filament spacing
within the range claimed by Appellants (i.e., 1.2 mm—2.2 mm) because
Baldauf locates multiple scrim filaments between adjacent adhesive lines.
As taught by Horn, these lines can be from about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm
apart. Id.
Appellants argue that Baldauf does not disclose or suggest a laminate
material with multiple warp strands between two adjacent adhesive strips
that run in the knitting direction. Appeal Br. 11. In addition, Appellants
argue that Horn does not suggest modifying the warp strand placement in
Baldauf s laminate material element so that multiple warp strands would be
provided between two adjacent adhesive strips that run in the knitting
4
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
direction. Id. at 12—13. Instead, Appellants contend that Horn teaches away
from such a modification. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Baldauf
discloses a laminate material for a female part of a hook and loop closure,
particularly a diaper closure. Baldauf H 3, 24. Baldauf describes its
laminate as including textile material 3 laminated onto carrier film 2. Id.
124; Figs. 1—2. According to Baldauf, the textile material 3 is a warp
knitted fabric having a basic interlaid scrim of filament yams 4. Id. The
carrier film 2 and textile material 3 are connected with one another via an
adhesive frame 6 having an internal adhesive pattern 7 with regions 8 that
are free of adhesive. Id. 125; Figs. 1—2. Although Baldauf s Figure 2
depicts Baldauf s adhesive pattern as having parallel stripes, Baldauf
discloses that in a preferred embodiment of their invention, the adhesive
forms a pattern having a cell-shaped stmcture, such as cell stmctures with
open cells, free of adhesive, within the adhesive frame. Baldauf 113; see
also id. at Fig. 3b. Thus, Baldauf s disclosure would reasonably have
suggested adhesive stripes that intersect perpendicularly, defining adhesive-
free cells, whereby one group of the adhesive stripes mns in the knitting
direction. If this adhesive pattern were used in Baldauf s laminate
material—e.g, the laminate material depicted in Baldauf s Figure 2—
multiple warp strands would be provided between adjacent adhesive strips
that mn in the knitting direction as in Appellants’ claimed laminate material.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s relies on impermissible
hindsight in combining Baldauf and Horn. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellants’ argument is not well-taken. The Examiner’s rejection
relies on teachings of the prior art references, as they would have been
5
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, not knowledge gleaned from Appellants’ Specification. In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Horn teaches that it is advantageous for one skilled in the art to
optimize parameters that affect connection performance, structural integrity,
and frayed edges to enhance a particular bond pattern for the construction of
a knitted fabric landing zone. Horn 1118. In terms of connection
performance, Horn teaches a gap between adjacent adhesive strips ranging
from about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm “to provide sufficient unbonded areas
for optimum male hook engagement.” Id. Additionally, Horn teaches an
adhesive line width ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm for
“ensuring a sufficient high structural integrity of the knitted fabric bond to
the underlying substrate.” Id. On this record, Appellants do not explain
why, in view of those disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been led to modify Baldauf s adhesive pattern to include adhesive
strips having widths ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm, and to
include a distance from about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm between adjacent
adhesive strips that run in the knitting direction to optimize the bond pattern
for the female part of its hook and loop closure. Nor do Appellants explain
why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led, for the same
reason, to further modify Baldauf’s laminate material so that the spacing
6
Appeal 2016-004626
Application 13/269,070
between adjacent scrim filaments lies between 1.2 mm and 2.2 mm to
accommodate Baldauf’s multiple scrim filaments between adjacent adhesive
strips positioned from about 0.1 to about 15 mm apart.
During the hearing, Appellants argue for the first time that the
Examiner has not established that Baldauf and Horn teach or suggest the
distance between adjacent warp strands lies between 1.2 mm and 2.2 mm.
Tr. 8; see generally Appeal Br. 7—14; see also Reply Br. 1—8. That
argument is untimely, and the Appellants have not shown good cause for
failing to raise that argument in the opening Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1
and 5—9 for the reasons set out by the Examiner and given above
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5—9 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).
AFFIRMED
7