Ex Parte MAGEE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

14552875 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/552,875 11/25/2014
27752 7590 05/29/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luke R. MAGEE
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.
8872CC2CCQ 4326
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 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 LUKER. MAGEE, GEORGE B. GLACKIN III,
CHRISTOPHER J. HOSMER, NAOMI S. KORN,
JAMES D. WILSON, MARK C. BATES,
MATTIAS SCHMIDT,
EV A SUSANNE DOMINIQUE THURN A Y,
JOERG MUELLER, JOHN C. COSTELLO,
ANN MARIE SULLIVAN, GREGG ALLEN FLENDER,
DONALD C. ROE, MARK JAMES KLINE, and
KENNETH EDWIN JEWELL
Appeal2018-008678
Application 14/552,875
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-008678
Application 14/552,875
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, The Procter & Gamble Company, appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a disposable absorbent article designed to
facilitate an easy change. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A disposable absorbent article, comprising:
a. a liquid pervious topsheet comprising a body facing
surface;
b. a liquid impervious backsheet;
c. an absorbent core disposed between said liquid pervious
topsheet and said liquid impervious backsheet;
d. a pair of cuffs, each of which comprising one or more
elastic strands; and
e. an internally visible serviceable indicium that is visible
on or through said body facing surface of said liquid pervious
top sheet;
f. wherein the cuffs comprise a cuff color that is
complementary to a color of the internally visible serviceable
indicium; and
g. wherein the cuff color exists from tinting the material
from which the cuffs are made.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Karami
Weber
Nair
US 5,263,949 Nov. 23, 1993
US 6,352,528 Bl Mar. 05, 2002
US 2003/0207091 Al Nov. 06, 2003
2
Appeal2018-008678
Application 14/552,875
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nair and Weber.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nair, Weber, and Karami.
OPINION
The claims subject to the rejection based on Nair and Weber are
argued as a group (App. Br. 2-3) for which claim 1 is representative under
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The claims subject to the rejection based on
Nair, Weber, and Karami are argued on the same basis as the first group of
claims adding only the argument that Karami does not cure the alleged
deficiencies of Nair and Weber. App. Br. 3.
The Examiner found the basic article claimed in Nair but without fully
satisfying limitation "e," which recites "an internally visible serviceable
indicium that is visible on or through said body facing surface of said liquid
pervious topsheet." Final Act. 3. Regarding that difference between the
claimed subject matter and Nair, the Examiner cited Weber's indicia 166
and 168 on back ear portions 34, which form part of Weber's liquid
permeable bodyside liner 42, which according to the claim language, is on
the "body facing surface of [the] liquid pervious topsheet." Final Act. 3--4
( citing Weber Fig. 10, col. 14, 11. 62---65, col. 20, 11. 11-20, col. 4, 11. 16-27).
The sole argument presented in the Appel Brief is that "Weber teaches
printing in the back ear portion but not on a top sheet." Appellant contends,
"There is no specific teaching of the printing being on the topsheet in the
back ear portion of the article." In light of the fact that the cited portion of
3
Appeal2018-008678
Application 14/552,875
Weber ( col. 14, 11. 62-65) expressly states that "the side panels [34] can be
formed as a portion of a component of the composite structure 33, such as
the outer cover or the bodyside liner [ 4 2]," Appellant's argument is clearly
incorrect. Ans. 2-3.
Appellant does not maintain this argument in the Reply Brief. The
sole argument presented in the Reply Brief is that Nair should not be
considered available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103(c)(l) and 102(e).
Reply. Br. 1-2. However, Appellant has not shown good cause for not
presenting this argument earlier. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2) states: "[a]ny
argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or
is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including
any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board
for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown."
Accordingly, we consider Appellant's argument concerning the availability
of Nair as a prior-art reference untimely and do not consider this argument
for purposes of the present appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are 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
4