Ex Parte Hundorf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

13191726 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
13/191,726 07/27/2011 Harald Hermann HUNDORF CM3563MQ 4642
27752 7590 03/01/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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 HARALD HERMANN HUNDORF, PETER OSTLE,
SIEGFRIED LINK, and MARTIN DOHMEN
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
Technology Center 1700
Before RAE LYNN P. GUEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for making a structure that comprises a
combination of a particulate material and a substrate material,
including:
a) a first moving endless surface with a direction of
movement (MD) and with one or more of reservoirs, said first
moving endless surface and reservoirs thereof being for
transferring particulate material to:
b) a second moving endless surface with a direction of
movement (MD) carrying a substrate material for receiving said
particulate material from said first moving endless surface in a
receiving zone and for transferring said combination of said
particulate material and said substrate material in a transferring
zone, said second moving endless surface being in said
receiving zone adjacent a first vacuum chamber and being in
gas communication therewith, and said second moving endless
surface being in said transferring zone adjacent a second
vacuum chamber, and being in gas communication therewith,
said receiving zone and said transferring zone being adjacent
(in MD) one another,
c) an adhesive application unit for applying adhesive to
said combination of said substrate and said particulate material,
said adhesive application unit positioned downstream of said
first moving endless surface opposite said second moving
endless surface and said second vacuum chamber in said
transferring zone; wherein the ratio of the said negative vacuum
pressure in said first vacuum chamber to the negative vacuum
pressure in said second vacuum chamber is at least 4:3; and
d) an anvil roll downstream of said transferring zone for
receiving said combination of said particulate material and said
substrate material and combining said combination with a
further substrate material.
2
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
Appellant1 (see generally Appeal Brief) requests review of the
following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Action:
I. Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blessing ’695 (US 2006/0021695 Al, published February
2, 2006), Ando (US 6,706,129 B2, issued March 16, 2004), and Blessing
’880 (US 2006/0048880 Al, published March 9, 2006).
II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Blessing ’695, Ando, Blessing ’880, and Hinton (US 5,964,974, issued
October 12, 1999).
For Rejection I, Appellant does not argue any claim separate from the
other. See generally App. Br. For the separate Rejections II, Appellant
relies on the arguments presented when discussing Rejection I and do not
distinguish the additional features of the rejected claim based on the
additionally cited reference. Id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter before us for review on appeal and
decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejection based on the arguments made
by Appellant in support of patentability of claim 1.
1 Marion Hundorf is the Applicant. The real party in interest is identified as
The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. App. Br. 1.
3
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
OPINION
The Prior Art Rejections2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-7,
9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellant
and add the following.
The invention is directed to an apparatus for making a structure
comprising a combination of a particulate material and a substrate material.
Spec. 1-3. The apparatus comprises first and second moving endless
surfaces, where the second moving endless surface has first and second
vacuum chambers respectively defining a receiving zone to receive a
combined substrate/particulate material assembly and a transferring zone to
eventually transfer the combined substrate/particulate material assembly
onto another substrate fed by an anvil roll downstream of the transferring
zone. Id. at 1-3, 12. The invention is said to deposit particulate material
onto a substrate in an accurate and cost effective manner. Id. at 2.
The Examiner finds Blessing ’695 discloses an apparatus having first
and second moving endless belts, as well as an anvil roll associated with the
second moving endless belt, where the apparatus differs from the claimed
invention in that the second moving belt of Blessing ’695 does not have a
second vacuum chamber/transferring zone as claimed. Final Act. 2-3;
Blessing ’695 Figures 4A and 4B, 66-75. The Examiner finds Ando
2 A discussion of the reference Blessing ’880 cited in the rejection of claim 1
is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal because the reference was cited
to address the placement of an adhesive application unit. Final Act. 4-5.
Blessing ’880 was not cited to address the claimed transfer zone/anvil roll
arrangement.
4
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
discloses an apparatus comprising first and second moving endless belts for
dispensing particulate material onto a substrate material, where the second
moving endless belt comprises vacuum chambers defining the claimed
receiving and transferring zones that ensures the arrangement and fixture of
the particles to the inside of the substrate material (retaining sheet). Final
Act. 3—4 (citing Ando col. 3,1.1-col. 4,1. 27 and Figure 1). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the apparatus of Blessing ’695 by providing the second moving
endless belt of the apparatus of Blessing ’695 with a second vacuum
chamber/transferring zone, as claimed, in view of Ando’s teaching that such
a modification enables the receiving zone to more easily retain the substrate
and the particles that are being transferred. Final Act. 3—4 (citing Ando col.
3,11. 26^15).
Appellant contends that the cited references do not disclose an anvil
roll downstream of a transferring zone, as claimed, and the Examiner has
failed to explain why it would have been obvious to modify the cited
references to include the claimed anvil roll. App. Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has not provided a sufficient
reason to combine the references. While both Blessing ’695and Ando teach
devices for producing absorbent core structures comprising particulate
material (Blessing ’695 ^ 1; Ando col. 1,11. 6-12), the Examiner does not
adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have added a second
vacuum chamber/transferring zone to the second endless moving belt of the
apparatus of Blessing ’695solely for the purpose of transferring the substrate
and particle materials between the receiving zone and the anvil roll when in
5
Appeal 2017-005701
Application 13/191,726
Blessing ’695 the receiving zone and anvil roll are adjacent one another.
Ando provides no particular rationale or advantage to having a second
vacuum chamber/transferring zone {see generally Ando, col. 3,11. 14-25),
and the Examiner has articulated none.
Moreover, Figure 1 of Ando teaches the use of an anvil roll for
receiving a combination of a particulate material and a substrate material and
for combining this combination with a further substrate material at a point
upstream of the transferring zone defined by vacuum chamber (c), the
chamber identified by the Examiner as meeting the claimed second vacuum
chamber/transferring zone. Final Act. 3. Given this teaching by Ando, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how one skilled in the art would
have modified the second endless moving belt of the apparatus of Blessing
’695 to incorporate a second vacuum chamber/transferring zone and still
arrive at the claimed arrangement of an anvil roll located downstream of the
transferring zone without the benefit of hindsight of Appellant’s invention.
Accordingly we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by
Appellant and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6