Ex Parte Long

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11112430 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
11/112,430 04/22/2005 Leslie Thomas Long 21,250 5897
23556 7590 08/29/2012
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tara Pohlkotte
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
KUMAR, RAKESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LESLIE THOMAS LONG
____________

Appeal 2010-008701
Application 11/112,430
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Leslie Thomas Long (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-008701
Application 11/112,430

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a stack of interfolded sheets
stored in a container or dispenser. Spec 1. Claims 1 and 3 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced
below:
1. A product comprising:
a stack of a plurality of interfolded sheets assembled from a
folded sheet material;
the stack having a first side, a second side, a plurality of first
side folded sheets and a plurality of second side folded sheets;
a majority of the first side folded sheets folded into a "V-fold"
configuration; and
a majority of the second side folded sheets folded into a "Z-
fold" configuration.

THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bando (US Patent 6,250,495 B1, issued Jun. 26, 2001).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bando and Hill (US Patent 6,213,344 B1, issued April 10,
2011).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bando, Hill and Schmidt (US Patent 6,685,050 B2, issued
Feb. 3, 2004).

Appeal 2010-008701
Application 11/112,430

3
ANALYSIS
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 based on Bando, the Examiner
has determined that “one of ordinary skill would consider the first side as
having a V-fold (V-1) and thus inherently the second side would therefore
have the Z- fold (Z-1), as a result each side currently has either a single V-
fold or a single Z-fold.” Ans. 9. This arrangement results in a 50-50
distribution of V-fold and Z-fold sheets. The Examiner further finds that
“the Bando dispenser can be modified such that the top most sheet can either
begin with a Z-fold or a V-fold (as seen in Figure 3 and 4), thereby
increasing the percentage of one type fold over the other type fold slightly
(more than 50 percent) depending on the type of fold the stack begins with.”
Ans. 4.
The Appellant counters that:
A stack of interfolded sheets has two sides,
referred to by Appellants [sic] as "first" and
"second" sides. Looking at the first side of the
stack, one identifies each of the exposed sheet
folds on that side of the stack and then identifies
the fold pattern of the sheet in question (Z-fold, V-
fold or C-fold). All of the exposed folds on the
first side of the stack are counted.
Br. 4. We believe that the Examiner has erred in ignoring the manner in
which the pattern of the sheets disclosed in Bando alternates between V-
folds alternating between the right and left side of Bando’s stack (as viewed
in Bando Fig. 3) and Z-folds traversing both sides of the stack. Regardless
of which type of fold Bando’s stack begins and/or ends with , for a stack of
any height, since the Z-fold sheets traverse both sides of Bando’s stack, the
number of V-fold sheets on the first side would never exceed 50%, and thus
Appeal 2010-008701
Application 11/112,430

4
would never achieve the “majority” required by claim 1. As such, the
Examiner has not established that the subject matter of claim 1 would have
been obvious. For this reason, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1.
With regard to claim 3, the Examiner introduces Hill to teach the
replacement of Bando’s V-fold sheets with C-fold sheets. However, nothing
in Hill remedies the underlying deficiency of the Bando reference.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 3.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, the Examiner continues to rely on the
erroneous interpretation of the teachings of Bando. As stated above, the
stack of Bando would never have more than 50% V-fold sheets on the first
side. As such, it is impossible to reach the 70% required by claims 4 or 15.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 15.
With regard to multiple dependent claims 5 -7, the Examiner’s
arguments related to overlap ratio are rendered moot as no evidence of
record cures the underlying deficiencies of either claim 1 or claim 3 from
which claims 5-7 depend. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 5-7.
With regard to dependent claim 8, the Examiner introduces Schmidt
to teach a stack containing a starter sheet. However, nothing in Schmidt
cures the underlying deficiency of either claim 1 or claim 3 from which
claim 8 depends. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 8.
With regard to multiple dependent claims 9 -10, the Examiner’s
arguments related to the sidewall are rendered moot as no evidence of record
cures the underlying deficiencies of either claim 1 or claim 3 from which
Appeal 2010-008701
Application 11/112,430

5
these claims depend. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 9-10.

DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-10, and
15.
REVERSED
JRG