Ex Parte Lam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

13221224 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/221,224 08/30/2011
27752 7590 05/10/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Patent Services - Legal IP
Central Building, CS
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Hung Lam
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.
11871M 3165
EXAMINER
DULKO, MARTA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2016 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 JOSEPH HUNG LAM, GARY DEAN LA VON, and
RONALD JOSEPH ZINK II
Appeal2014-006656
Application 13/221,224
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims directed to a process of assembling diaper
pants. Appellants appeal from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134. The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Claims 1-7 stand finally rejected by the Examiner as follows:
1. Claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious
in view of Hornung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0084497 Al,
published April 2, 2009) ("Hornung") and Wada et al. (U.S. Patent
Appeal2014-006656
Application 13/221,224
Publication No. 2007/0142808 Al, published June 21, 2007) ("Wada").
Final Rej. 2.
2. Claim 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious in view
of Hornung, Wada, and Matsuda et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2004/0243083 Al, published Dec. 2, 2004) ("Matsuda"). Final Rej. 4--5.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. Claims 2-7 depend
from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A process for assembling disposable diaper pants, each
diaper pant comprising a chassis having a first waist region
longitudinally opposed to a second waist region, and having a
longitudinal axis and a lateral axis, the chassis comprising: a
topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between
the topsheet and the backsheet, each diaper pant further
comprising a ring-like elastic belt defined by a first elastic belt
connected with the first waist region and second elastic belt
connected with the second waist region, wherein opposing end
regions of the first elastic belt are connected with opposing end
regions of the second elastic belt to form a waist opening, the
process comprising the steps of:
advancing a first continuous web in the machine direction;
cutting the first continuous web into discrete chassis, wherein
each chassis advances such that the longitudinal axis is parallel
with the machine direction;
spacing each chassis apart from each other along the machine
direction;
stretching a continuous elastic material in a machine direction;
combining the elastic material with at least one nonwoven web
to form a continuous elastic web having a first surface and an
opposing second surface advancing in the machine direction;
cutting the continuous elastic web into discrete elastic patches;
turning each elastic patch such that the direction of stretch is
substantially parallel with a cross direction, wherein each
elastic patch has a leading end region and a trailing end region;
connecting the first waist region of each chassis with the
trailing end region of a first advancing elastic patch;
2
Appeal2014-006656
Application 13/221,224
connecting the second waist region of each chassis with the
leading end region of a second advancing patch;
cutting the each elastic patch to form the first elastic belt and
the second elastic belt;
folding each chassis; and
connecting opposing end regions of each first elastic belt to
opposing end regions of each second elastic belt to create
discrete diaper pants.
DISCUSSION
All the rejections are based on the combination of Hornung and Wada.
Appellants claim a method of assembling disposable diaper pants.
The method comprises cutting a continuous web into "discrete chassis," and
"stretching a continuous elastic in a machine direction" and combining it
with a nonwoven web to make an elastic web which is cut into "discrete
elastic patches." The "discrete elastic patches" are turned in the "cross
direction," connected with the "chassis," and then further processed to create
discrete diaper pants.
The Examiner cited Hornung for describing the steps of the claimed
method, but not the step of "stretching a continuous elastic material in a
machine direction" and turning the elastic patches in a cross direction. Final
Rej. 4. For these steps, the Examiner relied on the teachings in Wada which
describe stretching the elastic in a machine direction, combining it with a
web and then cutting it to form an elastic patch, and then turning the elastic
patch in a cross direction. Id. The Examiner found that it would have been
obvious to have incorporated Wada's steps into Hornung for the following
reason:
because this modification would expectedly allow for
incorporation of the elastic materials stretched in the machine
3
Appeal2014-006656
Application 13/221,224
Id.
direction which is viewed as more cost effective option than the
elastics stretched in the cross direction (Para 11 [of Wada]),
since maintaining the elastic stretched in CD during diaper
assembly requires significantly more advanced machinery,
while keeping elastic stretched in MD can be achieved by only
two pairs of rollers.
Appellants contend that the Examiner did not provide adequate
reasons to have combined Hornung with Wada. Appeal Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants that the weight of the evidence does not
support the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner cited Paragraph 11 of
Wada as the reason to combine its teachings with Hornung. Paragraph 11 of
Wada states "extensible sheets are expensive and the side panel is formed by
using an extensible sheet in the first patent document, whereby the
production cost of the worn article will be high." This statement does not
provide a reason to have turned the elastic patch in the cross direction after
stretching in the machine direction. In paragraph 18 of Wada; Wada
explains that the cost of Wada's invention is reduced by "sandwiching an
elastic thread between a pair of sheet-like materials." Wada teaches that the
sandwiching makes it "possible to reduce the production cost as compared
with a case where expensive extensible sheets are used, such as elastic films
or extensible non-woven fabric sheets." Wada i-f 18. Paragraph 11 of Wada
therefore does not support the Examiner's position that there would have
been reason to tum the elastic patch as claimed. Rather, as discussed in
paragraph 18, Wada uses a "sandwiching" approach to reduce costs instead
of using extensible sheets.
The Examiner also asserted that more advanced machinery is needed
to stretch in the cross direction, instead of the machine direction. Final Rej.
4
Appeal2014-006656
Application 13/221,224
4. However, the Examiner provides no evidence to support this argument.
In fact, both cross direction and machine direction stretching were known in
the prior art as established by Hornung and Wada, respectively. The
Examiner has not cited to evidence in either publication that stretching in
one direction over another direction requires more costly or advanced
machinery. The Examiner has also not provided an explanation as to how
the orientation of the chassis and elastic waist belts would be preserved
when Hornung, which "makes waist belts from the elastic film stretched in
cross-machine direction (CD)" (Answer 2), is modified by Wada's teaching.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not asserted nor provided evidence of the
interchangeability of replacing the Hornung's steps with Wada's.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not establish
an adequate fact-based reason to have modified Hornung's process with
Wada's teachings.
The rejection of claim 1 is reversed. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1
and are reversed for the same reasons.
REVERSED
5