Ex Parte Margo Moreno

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2019

14297111 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/297,111 06/05/2014
23556 7590 06/20/2019
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oriol Margo Moreno
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.
64898990US01 5264
EXAMINER
THROWER,LARRYW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2019 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):
Kimberlyclark. docketing@kcc.com
Tisha.Sutherland@kcc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ORIOL MARGO MOREN01
Appeal 2018-007 465
Application 14/297, 111
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGIANNA
W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claims 9 and 10 as
being anticipated by Lofink et al. (US 2011/0123773 Al, published May 26,
2011; hereinafter "Lofink") (Final Action 2-3) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 11-20 as being unpatentable over Lofink (id. at 3-4). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., which is
identified as the real party in interest (Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2018-007 465
Application 14/297, 111
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a process to mate a plurality of tissue webs
comprising the steps of providing embossing roll 24 with first protrusions 30
and second protrusions 32, providing counter roll 44 with recesses 50, and
advancing a plurality of tissue webs 22a/22b through a nip between the
embossing and counter rolls, wherein the first protrusions create a series of
first embossments 60 and the second protrusions create a series of second
embossments 62, thereby connecting the tissue webs to one another (sole
independent claim 9, Fig. 5a). A narrower embodiment of the claimed
process recites that every first embossment is adjacent to at least one other
first embossment ( dependent claim 16).
A copy of claims 9 and 16, taken from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, appears below.
9. A process to mate a plurality of tissue webs, the
process compnsmg:
providing an embossing roll having an embossing roll
primary surface, the embossing roll comprising first protrusions
and second protrusions, each first protrusion protruding a first
height from the primary surface and each second protrusion
protruding a second height from the primary surface, the first
height being greater than the second height;
providing a counter roll having a counter roll primary
surface, the counter roll comprising recesses;
forming a nip between the embossing roll and the counter
roll;
rotating the embossing roll about a first axis of rotation
and rotating the counter roll about a second axis of rotation; and
advancing the plurality of tissue webs through the nip,
wherein the first protrusions press a first series of
2
Appeal 2018-007 465
Application 14/297, 111
portions of the plurality of tissue webs into the recesses
proximate the nip as the embossing roll and counter roll
simultaneously rotate to create a series of first embossments
connecting the tissue webs to one another, and
wherein the second protrusions press a second
series of portions of the plurality of tissue webs against the
counter roll primary surface as the embossing roll and counter
roll simultaneously rotate to create a series of second
embossments connecting the tissue webs to one another,
the plurality of tissue webs thereafter defining a
composite web.
16. The process of claim 10 wherein every first
embossment is adjacent to at least one other first embossment
in the individual tissue product.
Br. 5-6 (Claims App.)
Appellant presents arguments specifically directed to claims 9 and 16
only (Br. 2-4). Therefore, the remaining claims under rejection (i.e.,
dependent claims 10-15 and 17-20) will stand or fall with their parent
independent claim 9.
We sustain the rejections before us for the reasons given in the Final
Office Action and the Examiner's Answer with the following comments
added for emphasis and completeness.
In rejecting claim 9 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that Lofink
discloses a process to mate a plurality of tissue webs using embossing roll 10
with first and second protrusions 16, 18 in combination with counter roll
(i.e., adhesive application roll) 48 with recesses (i.e., embossed depressions)
76 (Final Action 2-3; see Ans. 3-4; see Lofink Figs. 1-2, ,-J,-J 80, 85).
Appellant argues that Lofink shows only a single tissue ply, rather
than the claimed plurality of tissue plies or webs, passing between
embossing roll 10 and adhesive application roll 48 and that application roll
3
Appeal 2018-007 465
Application 14/297, 111
48 has embossed depressions rather than recesses as claimed (Br. 3 ( citing,
e.g., Lofink ,i,i 80, 85)).
In response to Appellant's argument concerning the claim requirement
for a plurality of tissue plies or webs, the Examiner states "[p Jaragraph 57 of
Lofink ... clearly describes a plurality of tissue plies being directed into the
nip between the embossing roll 10 and the adhesive application roll 48"
(Ans. 6). As for the argument concerning recesses, the Examiner states
"application roll 48 has recesses that are formed as embossing protrusion[ s]
16 and 18 on embossing roll 10 elastically depress application roll 48, as
shown in figure 2 of Lofink" (id. at 7). According to the Examiner, the
recesses of claim 9 are indistinguishable from such recesses or depressions
of Lofink (id.).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's statements in the record of
this appeal (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). Based on this record,
Appellant's arguments fail to reveal error in the Examiner's finding that
claim 9 is anticipated by Lofink.
Appellant challenges the§ 103 rejection of claim 16 by arguing
without embellishment "Lofink simply offers no suggestion that every first
embossment must be adjacent to at least one other first embossment [ as
claimed]" (Br. 4 ).
Appellant's argument is identical to an argument previously advanced
during prosecution. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner considers the
argument unpersuasive because "there is no [patentable] invention in merely
changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except
in a design patent" (Final Action 5). In the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner reiterates this point and states, "requiring every first embossment
to be adjacent another first embossment is merely changing the shape or
4
Appeal 2018-007 465
Application 14/297, 111
form of the tissue product" (Ans. 8). The Examiner correctly observes
"Appellant[] ha[ s] provided no evidence, or even argument, that changing
the shape or form of the tissue product in this manner has any effect on its
function" (id.).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner's determination that the
claim 16 arrangement of first embossments performs no utilitarian function
and therefore fails to define a patentable distinction of the claimed process
from Lofink's process. For this reason alone, Appellant's unembellished
argument shows no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5