Ex Parte ITO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12575679 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/575,679 10/08/2009
23900 7590 08/09/2016
JC PATENTS
4 VENTURE, SUITE 250
IRVINE, CA 92618
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HIDEMI ITO
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.
JCLA32168 1500
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEG HA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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 HIDEMI ITO and TAIJU TERAKA WA 1
Appeal2015-001262
Application 12/575,679
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a composite spunbonded nonwoven comprising
composite fibers that have been partially thermal compression bonded to
each other wherein the composite spunbonded nonwoven, in each of the
1 Chisso Corporation and Chisso Polypro Fiber Co., Ltd., are identified as
the real parties in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001262
Application 12/575,679
thermal compression bonded portions, has a fine folded structure formed by
repeating convex portions and concave portions in a cross direction (sole
independent claim 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A composite spunbonded nonwoven, comprising:
composite fibers comprising a low melting point component
and a high melting point component, wherein the composite
fibers are core-sheath type composite fibers having the low
melting point component disposed at a sheath side and the high
melting point component disposed at a core side, and have a
composite form in which a part of the high melting point
component is exposed out of the surface of the fibers with a
surface area less than or equal to 50% based on the surface of
the fibers, the composite fibers are partially thermal
compression bonded to each other, the composite spunbonded
nonwoven having been subjected to the thermal compression
bonding in each of the thermal compression bonded portions
has a fine folded structure formed by repeating convex portions
and concave portions in a cross direction (CD) in nonwoven
manufacturing, an average of distances between adjacent
convex portions of the folded structures is in a range of
100 µm--400 µm, the composite spunbonded nonwoven exhibits
an elongation property by unfolding the fine folded structures,
and when the composite spunbonded nonwoven is elongated by
5%, a CD strength is less than or equal to 0.1 N/5 cm width, a
MD/CD strength ratio is greater than or equal to 200, and MD
is the longitudinal direction in nonwoven manufacturing.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects independent claim 1
as unpatentable over Motomura et al. (WO 2008/108238 Al, published Sept.
12, 2008 with equivalent US 2010/0105273 Al, published Apr. 29, 2010
being cited and discussed by the Examiner) ("Motomura") (Final Action 2-
2
Appeal2015-001262
Application 12/575,679
3) and dependent claims 2-13 as unpatentable over Motomura alone or in
combination with additional prior art (id. at 4-6).
The Examiner also rejects claims 1-11 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7 of
US Patent No. 8,415,263 (id. at 7).
We summarily sustain the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection because Appellants do not contest it in the record of this appeal.
Furthermore, we sustain the § 103 rejections for the reasons given in
the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Motomura discloses a composite spunbonded
nonwoven comprising composite fibers including crimped fibers which have
been partially thermal compression bonded (i.e., thermally embossed) to
each other wherein the thermal compression bonded portions include a
folded structure (i.e., the crimped structure of the crimped fibers) in a cross
direction as required by claim 1 (Final Action 2-3).
Appellants argue that "iviotomura d[ o ]es not mention or imply that the
crimped structure of the crimped fibers, which may be considered as a fine
folded structure with repeating convex portions and concave portions, is
retained in the thermal compression bonded portions (embossed portions)
after the thermal compression for the bonding" (App. Br. 3--4).2
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Motomura expressly teaches
that, in hot embossing a crimped fiber nonwoven fabric, "a tying point is
formed in an emboss part in which crimped long fibers are practically linked
2 Appellants present arguments specifically directed to the folded structure
limitation of claim 1 with no additional arguments directed to claims 2-13
(id. at 3-5). Therefore, these claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-001262
Application 12/575,679
to each other" (ii 69). This teaching evinces that the crimped structure of the
crimped fibers is retained in the embossed portions of Motomura's
nonwoven.
Appellants acknowledge this teaching but contend
Motomura used the term "crimped long fibers" just for clearly
telling the readers what fibers (the originally crimped fibers) are
linked to each other in the embossing (thermal compression
bonding), but should not have intended to mean that the fibers
are still crimped in the embossed portions after the thermal
compression bonding
(App. Br. 4).
We perceive no convincing merit in Appellants' contention because it
is unsupported by evidence and contrary to the express language of
Motomura' s teaching.
Appellants additionally argue that the folded structure of claim 1 is
formed in a cross direction whereas "the crimped fibers [of Motomura] are
assembled in random so that the crimps thereof are oriented in random
directions" (id. at 5). 3
However, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he claim only requires
that there are concave and convex portions in the CD [i.e., cross direction],
which would exist even in a random arrangement" (Ans. 3).
In reply, Appellants argue that "the claimed fine folded structures are
each inherently formed by an assembly of fibers, and are oriented
substantially only in the CD as shown in FIG. lA/B due to the above
3 For completeness, we recognize that Appellants refer to the distance range
of 100--400 µm recited in claim 1 (id. at 4) but emphasize that Appellants do
not address, and therefore do not show error in, the Examiner's conclusion
that such distances would have been obvious (Final Action 3).
4
Appeal2015-001262
Application 12/575,679
mentioned particular mechanism [for creating folded structures as described
in paragraph 25 of the Specification]" (Reply Br. 2-3). According to
Appellants, "the residual crimps [of Motomura] are oriented in random
directions ... [rather than] oriented substantially only in the CD as
inherently included in the claimed invention" (id. at 3).
We find no language in the claim or in Specification ,-i 25 that requires
the folded structure of claim 1 to be inherently oriented substantially only in
the cross direction. For example, the portion of,-i 25 emphasized by
Appellants (id. at 2) merely discloses "folded structures are exhibited in the
CD" (Appellants' emphasis omitted) with no indication that the structures
are exhibited or oriented substantially only in the CD as argued.
For the reasons given above and by the Examiner, Appellants fail to
show error in the § 103 rejection of representative claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
THv1E PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5