Ex Parte Kullman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

13381119 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/381,119 0113112012
105718 7590 05/17/2016
SCA Hygiene Products AB
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcus Kullman
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.
1018798-000625 9790
EXAMINER
STEF ANON, JUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS KULLMAN, MATS LIND,
CHRISTIAN SODERLUND, and MICHAEL GUSTAFSSON
Appeal2015-008066
Application 13/381,119
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LEE L. STEPINA, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marcus Kullman et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1-18 as unpatentable over Grasso (US
5,765,718, iss. June 16, 1998) and Tramontina (US 2003/0122031 Al, pub.
July 3, 2003). An oral hearing was held on May 10, 2016. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-008066
Application 13/381,119
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dispenser. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A dispenser for sheet material adapted to be mounted on
a wall, said dispenser comprising a housing for receiving said
sheet material and a door pivotally attached to said housing via
a substantially vertically arranged hinge,
said housing:
• comprising a hinge wall associated with said substantially
vertically arranged hinge, an upper end wall, a
substantially vertical wall and a lower end wall, said walls
defining an edge delimiting a lateral charge opening in
said housing for replenishing said dispenser with said
sheet material, and
• being provided with a dispensing opening for said sheet
material at said lower end wall,
said door:
• comprising an essentially vertical portion, a free end
opposite said hinge and a door rim at least partly adjacent
said edge of said housing when said door is in a closed
position, and
• being adapted to cover said charge opening, and
• wherein said edge of said housing has a hinge portion at
said hinge wall and a free edge portion extending along
said upper end wall, said substantially vertical wall and
said lower end wall,
wherein said free edge portion, or said housing in proximity of
said free edge portion, comprises a fixed guiding element for co-
operation with a region of said door rim during pivoting of said
door towards said closed position and, the fixed guiding element
includes a surface that is upwardly inclined with respect to
horizontal as seen in a direction that is substantially
perpendicular to the free edge portion of the housing and
extending from said door towards said housing in a horizontal
plane, said inclined surface being arranged so as to receive a
portion of the door and support the received portion of the door
so that the door is at a preferred height as the door approaches
the housing.
2
Appeal2015-008066
Application 13/381,119
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Grasso discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for a "fixed guiding element perpendicular to the free edge
portion." See Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds that "Tramontina
discloses such an element." Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to provide the apparatus of
Grasso with a guiding portion similar to that of Tramontina in order to
enable a user to more consistently align the door and housing." Id.
Contending that "Tramontina does not disclose that the housing
member 10 comprises the tab as claimed," Appellants note that "Tramontina
teaches the tab is at the edge of the door 12, rather than on the housing
member 10, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of the reference." Appeal Br. 8; see
also Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Responding to this argument, the Examiner asserts that
"[i]ndependent claim 1 does not state that the housing comprises either the
hinge portion or the free edge portion, rather merely claiming the location of
those elements with respect to the housing." Ans. 2. In support of this claim
interpretation, the Examiner notes that "as the clause claiming these spatial
relationships appears to be a bullet point indented under 'said door:', a
person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the claim would reasonably
conclude that the elements in that clause are on or related to the door." Id.
Claim 1 recites in relevant part:
wherein said edge of said housing has a hinge portion at
said hinge wall and a free edge portion extending along said
upper end wall, said substantially vertical wall and said lower
end wall,
wherein said free edge portion, or said housing in
proximity of said free edge portion, comprises a fixed guiding
3
Appeal2015-008066
Application 13/381,119
element for co-operation with a region of said door rim during
pivoting of said door towards said closed position.
Appeal Br. A-1 (emphases added, formatting omitted). Thus, despite the
first paragraph quoted supra being indented under the recitation of "said
door," claim 1 clearly recites that the free edge portion is part of the edge of
the housing. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner errs in interpreting claim 1 to
encompass a free edge portion - and subsequently a fixed guiding element
that is part of said free edge portion - on a door.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 1, and claims 2-18, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4