Ex Parte Lasfargues et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201812878790 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 12/878,790 09/09/2010 Leandre Lasfargues 366975US41 5643 22850 7590 01/23/2018 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3728 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2018 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): patentdocket @ oblon. com oblonpat @ oblon. com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEANDRE LASFARGUES and WALTER KREIDLER Appeal 2016-007364 Application 12/878,790 Technology Center 3700 Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Leandre Lasfargues and Walter Kreidler (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1,2, 4—6, and 8—151 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eckstein (US 6,270,867 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001) and Baudin (US 6,145,707, iss. Nov. 14, 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Although the Office Action Summary (Form PTOL-326) of the Final Office Action dated June 18, 2015, refers to, inter alia, claims 8—14 as being rejected, the rejection rejects claims 8—15. Final Act. 2. We understand the reference to claims “8—14” in the Office Action Summary to be a typographical error. Appeal 2016-007364 Application 12/878,790 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device for packaging and dispensing a product, particularly a cosmetic product, comprising: a body of a receptacle; and a dispensing head welded onto the body, wherein one of the body and the dispensing head including a layer of a mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene, the other of the body and the dispensing head being constituted of polypropylene, wherein the polyethylene of the mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene being present to the extent of 20 to 50%, wherein the entire body of the receptacle is produced as a single layer only of the mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene, wherein the entirety of the dispensing head is constituted of only polypropylene, wherein the dispensing head includes a base, the base having a dispensing opening formed therethrough from a top surface of the base to a bottom surface of the base to dispense the product, and wherein the base includes reinforcing means arranged on either side of and spaced apart from said opening, the reinforcing means extending upwards in a longitudinal direction of the receptacle body from the top surface of the base. DISCUSSION Claims L 2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12—15 Claims 2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12—15 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 7— 9. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of these claims. See generally id. Accordingly, claims 2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12— 15 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appeal 2016-007364 Application 12/878,790 The Examiner finds that Eckstein and Baudin disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Eckstein discloses a dispensing head 52 as shown in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 10, reproduced below: Annotated Figure 10 is a vertical sectional view of an alternative collapsible tube with annotations added by the Examiner. Appellants assert that, “as shown in Fig. 10 of Eckstein, the only portion of Eckstein having the dispensing opening is the top surface of the base .... Therefore, the bottom of the opening is the bottom of the base. In Eckstein, the only portion of the head 52 having the opening is the uppermost surface.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. Given this assertion, Appellants contend that “this uppermost surface of the head 52 having the opening, does not include a reinforcing means thereon that is arranged on either side of the opening and extending from a top surface of the base” as required by claim 1. Id. 3 Appeal 2016-007364 Application 12/878,790 Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “[t]he base has a reinforcing means which is considered the outwardly extending thickness that surrounds the lower portion of the neck 46.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further explains that “[t]his interpretation does not limit the base to the planar structure at the top of the neck 46, and the claims do not set forth any limitations which require that the base of Eckstein be only the planar top surface of the neck 46.” Id. Describing the base, the Specification states: The base 20 may comprise a level part 22 across which said opening 200 is provided. This base may also comprise a peripheral skirt 23. This skirt 23 may comprise a portion 230 that flares outwards, optionally as far as a free end 233. Such a portion may thus have a curved or rounded profile. Spec. 12. Thus, the Examiner’s construction of the claim term “base” as shown in the illustration supra (i.e., as including a skirt) is consistent with the use of that terminology in the Specification. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Eckstein’s base is limited to the uppermost surface of head 52 is unconvincing. As the remainder of Appellants’ arguments rely on Appellants’ overly narrow interpretation of the claim term “base,” it follows that these arguments are also unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12—15, which fall therewith. Claim 11 Appellants contend that Eckstein fails to disclose “reinforcing means including curved profile ribs.” Appeal Br. 5. However, Appellants’ only argument in support of this contention is a repeat of the argument supra that “as shown in Fig. 10 of Eckstein, the only portion of Eckstein having the 4 Appeal 2016-007364 Application 12/878,790 dispensing opening is the top surface of the base.” Id. This argument is unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra. We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 11. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, and 8—15 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation