Ex Parte MURPHY et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

14669572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/669,572 03/26/2015
27752 7590 06/04/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bryan Patrick MURPHY
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.
13291 9411
EXAMINER
REDDY, SATHAVARAM I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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 BRYAN PATRICK MURPHY,
REGINE LABEQUE, MIGUEL BRANDT SANZ,
NIKOLA CURCIC, and ANDREA GABRIELE
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of
Application 14/669,572 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Final Act. 3-6
(July 12, 2017). Appellants seek reversal of the rejection pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 The Procter & Gamble Co. is identified as the Applicant and the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
BACKGROUND
The '572 Application describes water soluble pouches for delivering
substrate treatment agents, such as dishwashing and laundry detergents;
surface cleaners; and laundry treatment compositions. See Spec 1 :7-8.
Claim 1 is representative of the '572 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( emphasis
added):
1. A water soluble pouch comprising:
a water soluble first sheet;
a water soluble second sheet joined to said water soluble
first sheet to at least partially define a chamber containing a
substrate treatment agent comprising a bleaching agent; and
an ink;
wherein each of said water soluble first sheet and said water
soluble second sheet have [sic, has] an interior surface and
an opposing exterior surface;
wherein said chamber is at least partially defined by said
interior surface of said water soluble first sheet and said
interior surface of said water soluble second sheet; and
wherein said ink comprises a pigment selected from the
group consisting of:
diketopyrrolo-pyrrole of the general formula
wherein each R can be the same or different and each R
represents a cyano group, methyl or an alkyl group, a
hydrogen group, a phenyl group, or a halogen group;
quinacridone of the general formula
2
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
anthraquinone of the general formula
phthalocyanine pigment particles, comprising a
phthalocyanine chromogen structure as a main component,
and a substituted soluble metal-phthalocyanine dye as a
minor component that non-covalently bonds with the
phthalocyanine chromogen structure, molecules of the
substituted soluble metal-phthalocyanine dye being
intercalated between layers of the phthalocyanine
chromogen structure, wherein the substituted soluble metal-
phthalocyanine dye is of the general formula
{'_,,,"{),,--):,_
,.~/< .. ,::/,:;:,'r:1
~.
where: M is a metal or group of metals and atoms capable of
bonding to a central cavity of the phthalocyanine molecule;
and each R independently represents H or a sterically bulky
substituent, provided that at least one R is other than
hydrogen, and the sterically bulky substituent is a wax-based
aliphatic group or an alkylaryl or arylalkyl group, where: the
alkylaryl or arylalkyl group comprises a C=N or C=S double
bond, or
3
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
the alkylaryl or arylalkyl group is fully saturated consisting
of a hydrocarbon group;
coumarin of the general formula
naphthalimide of the general formula
and mixtures thereof;
wherein said ink is on one or both of said interior surface of
said water soluble first sheet and said interior surface of
said water soluble second sheet.
Appeal Br. 8-10 (Claims App.).
4
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Content,2 Catalfamo,3 and Reisacher. 4 Final Act. 3.5, 6
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for the reversal of the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 on the basis of limitations present in
independent claim 1. See generally Appeal Br. at 1-7; Reply Br. 1-2. We
select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to
claim 1 with the understanding that it applies with equal force to
2 US 2010/0294153 Al, published Nov. 25, 2010.
3 US 2008/0139440 Al, published June 12, 2008.
4 US 2005/0080171 Al, published April 14, 2005.
5 The Examiner's statement of Rejection 1 included claim 16. Final Act. 3.
Appellants, however, canceled claim 16 by Amendment filed June 13, 2017.
Id. at 2. There is no dispute that the presently appealed claims are 1, 2, 4-9,
11-15, and 17-20. See id. at 1; Appeal Br. 8-11. Accordingly, we view the
Examiner's inclusion of claim 16 in Rejection 1 as a clerical error.
6 The Examiner's statement of Rejection 1 in the Answer repeats the
statement of this rejection in the Final Office Action, with the exception that
the Answer states that the claims "are rejected under 35 U.S.C
[§] 102(a)(l)." Answer 2; compare with Final Act. 3. Appellants' Brief
repeats the Examiner's statement of Rejection 1 from the Answer. Appeal
Br. 4. We view the Examiner's and Appellants' statements that the pending
claims are rejected under§ 102, rather than§ 103, as clerical errors. See n.5,
supra; Reply Br. 1.
5
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
independent claim 20 on appeal. 7 Claims 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-19 will
stand or fall with each of their respective independent claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address Appellants' arguments for reversal of claim 1
in tum.
The Examiner found that Content's pouch comprising water soluble
sheets having interior surfaces discloses or suggests every limitation of
claim 1 except: (i) ink printed on the interior surfaces of the water soluble
sheets, (ii) the pouched substrate treatment agent comprising a bleaching
agent, and (iii) "the ink comprising a pigment selected from diketopyrrolo-
pyrrole, quinacridone, anthraquinone[,] and mixtures thereof[,] wherein the
pigment is free from R-N=N-R'." Final Act. 3-4; see Content ,-J,-J 51, 64, 68,
69.
With respect to Content's deficiencies (i) and (ii), the Examiner found
that Catalfamo describes a pouch in which an image is printed on the "first
side," i.e., the same side that contacts a coloured liquid, and that the
coloured liquid further comprises a bleaching agent. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Catalfamo ,-J,-J 24, 39, 64); see also Catalfamo ,-J 22.
Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious for the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention to
modify Content's pouch by printing an image on the water soluble films'
interior surfaces, as taught by Catalfamo, "because having the image on the
interior surface would [have] provide[ d] the desired appearance for the
7 We note that the term "water soluble interior surface," which is used in
claim 20, lacks an antecedent basis. We assume that this refers to "an
interior surface" of the "water soluble second sheet" recited in the same
claim. If there is further prosecution of the '572 Application, the claims
should be amended to address this problem.
6
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
article while maintaining the quality of the image." Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further concluded that it would have been obvious for the
ordinarily skilled artisan to include Catalfamo's bleaching agent in Content's
detergent because "having the required bleaching agent would [have]
provide[ d] the desired color effect for a detergent." Id.
Regarding Content's deficiency (iii), the Examiner found that
Reisacher describes the requisite ink compounds in a pigment preparation
for flexographic printing. Final Act. 4 ( citing Reisacher ,i,i 2, 39, 45-48, 51-
53, 160). The Examiner further found that Reisacher's ink is reasonably
pertinent to Content and Catalfamo because both references describe
"images formed from flexographic printing inks." Final Act. 5.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious for the
ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute Content's flexographic printing ink
with Reisacher' s flexographic printing ink "because having the required ink
would [have] provide[ d] the desired appearance for the article while
maintaining the quality of the image." Id.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because:
(1) the Examiner admits that Content teaches that it is critical to not have the
printed layer on the water soluble pouch's interior surface and that such an
admission means that the legal conclusion of obviousness should be
reversed. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. l; (2) the Examiner's admission
demonstrates that Content teaches away from combining the teachings
therein with Catalfamo to print an ink image on the water soluble pouch's
interior surfaces, Appeal Br. 5; and (3) nothing in the applied prior art
indicates that the ordinarily skilled artisan "would have expected that the
problem with printing on the interior surface of a water soluble pouch
7
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
containing a substrate treatment agent that comprises a bleaching agent
could be solved by providing an ink as claimed," id. at 6; Reply Br. 1-2.
We address these arguments below.
First, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments (1) and (2).
The teachings of a reference that arguably teaches away from a
claimed feature must be weighed alongside the teachings of a cited reference
that teaches the propriety of employing that feature. Para-Ordnance Mfg.,
Inc. v. SGS Imps. Int 'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995). For a
reference to "teach away," it must criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
In this case, Content teaches that it is only preferable that "the printed
material is not in []contact with [a] water-soluble detergent composition."
Content ,-J 69. Appellants do not direct our attention to any teaching in
Content that criticizes, discredits, or discourages printing material that would
contact a water-soluble detergent composition.
As the Examiner found, Catalfamo describes preferred embodiments
in which an image is printed on the water soluble film side that contacts a
coloured liquid comprising detergent. Catalfamo ,-J,-J 22, 28, 64. Catalfamo
discloses that the detergent composition further comprises a bleaching agent.
Id. at ,-J,-J 32, 39.
On this record, Content's alleged teaching away from printing an ink
image on the water soluble pouch's interior surface is outweighed by
Catalfamo' s teachings regarding the propriety of printing ink images on
surfaces, which contact a detergent comprising a bleaching agent.
8
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
Second, Appellants argue further in connection with argument (3) that
Reisacher fails to disclose that the ink described therein possesses any
resistance to bleaching agents. Reply Br. 2 ( citing Reisacher ,i 15 5).
When a claim is rejected as obvious over a combination of references,
the question is not what the references teach individually, but whether the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of the references and what these
teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As set forth above, Catalfamo solves Appellants' problem by
disclosing that images may be printed on a water-soluble film's surface,
which contacts a bleaching agent in a detergent composition. As the
Examiner found, Content, Catalfamo, and Reisacher disclose flexographic
printing applications. Final Act. 4-5. Appellants' arguments fail to identify
reversible error in the Examiner's reasoned determination that Reisacher' s
pigment preparation for use in a flexographic printing ink provides excellent
color properties, which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art to substitute Content's flexographic printing ink with Reisacher's
flexographic printing ink on the interior surfaces of water soluble sheets, as
taught by Catalfamo. Answer 4-5 (citing Reisacher ,i 155); see also Final
Act. 4-5.
In this case, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's
conclusion that the combination of Content, Catalfamo, and Reisacher
describes or suggests each limitation recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm Rejection 1.
9
Appeal 2018-0063 68
Application 14/669,572
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner's Final Office
Action and Answer, we affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15,
and 17-20 of the '572 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a).
AFFIRMED
10