Ex Parte NobileDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813566558 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/566,558 08/03/2012 7590 J.M. Robertson, LLC P.O. Box 131404 Birmingham, AL 35213 08/31/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David P. Nobile 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. 15702-0001 9154 EXAMINER CHEUNG, CHUN HO! ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3728 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID P. NOBILE Appeal2017-011273 Application 13/566,558 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is Contee, Inc. Br. 1. Appeal2017-011273 Application 13/566,558 THE INVENTION Appellant's claim is directed generally "to a packaging arrangement for presaturated cleaning wipes." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A containment package for presaturated wiper sheets, the containment package comprising: a substantially liquid and vapor impermeable body having an interior adapted to receive and store a plurality of wiper sheets presaturated with a solution subject to evaporation, the body including an access opening adapted for insertion and withdrawal of the wiper sheets through the access opening, wherein the body is a pliable expansible envelope with the access opening disposed between a first deformable wall of the envelope and a second deformable wall of the envelope, the body also including a bottom disposed in opposing relation to the access opening, and wherein the pliable expansible envelope includes gusseted ends disposed below non-gusseted end seams, wherein the non- gusseted end seams extend substantially vertically away from the gusseted ends to the access opening, and wherein the gusseted ends are constricted against expansion at the bottom and at the non-gusseted end seams such that the gusseted ends are characterized by a substantially ovoid profile with maximum width at a position spaced away from the bottom and the non- gusseted end seams; at least a first sealing element defining a magnet of pliable magnetized material supported on the first deformable wall at a position outside of the interior at an elevation below a first side of the access opening; and at least a second sealing element having a complimentary magnetic attraction to the first sealing element, the second sealing element being disposed on the second deformable wall at a position outside of the interior at an elevation below a second side of the access opening, the second side of the access opening being selectively moveable relative to the first side of the access opening to open and close the access opening such that with the first side of the access opening disposed in contacting, opposing relation to the second side of the access opening, the first sealing 2 Appeal2017-011273 Application 13/566,558 element and the second sealing element will act through the body to cooperatively form a magnetic seal to reversibly seal the access opening in a closed condition, wherein the pliable expansible envelope is formed from a foil laminate material, wherein the first sealing element is disposed in substantially adjacent, parallel relation to a first boundary edge of the access opening across a surface of the first deformable wall facing away from the interior and wherein the second sealing element is disposed in substantially adjacent, parallel relation to a second boundary edge of the access opening across a surface of the second deformable wall facing away from the interior, wherein the first boundary edge is a folded edge with a portion of the first deformable wall folded in covering relation over the first sealing element, wherein the second boundary edge is a folded edge with a portion of the second deformable wall folded in covering relation over the second sealing element, wherein the portion of the first deformable wall folded in covering relation over the first sealing element is secured to the body at a position below the first sealing element, and wherein the portion of the second deformable wall folded in covering relation over the second sealing element is secured to the body at a position below the second sealing element. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: O'Farrell Beer Scholz us 3,272,248 us 4,913,561 us 5,505,305 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Sept. 13, 1966 Apr. 3, 1990 Apr. 9, 1996 Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scholz, Beer, and O'Farrell. Final Act. 2. 3 Appeal2017-011273 Application 13/566,558 ANALYSIS Appellant's main argument against the Examiner's combination is that "Beer does not teach end seams extending substantially vertically away from the gusseted ends to the access opening." Br. 5. This is allegedly so because "Beer teaches the use of angularly diverging seals ( 40B) and ( 42B) which extend away from the gusset sections (32C) (32D) in an angled divergence from the gusseted section." Id. Although we do not disagree with Appellant's characterization of Beer, the claim does not require a strictly vertical seam, but merely a "substantially vertical seam." Beer's seam portions 40B and 42B still extend vertically while also extending inwardly, and they continue in portions 40A and 42A in a direction that can be considered strictly vertical. Given the totality of the direction of the seams we see no error in the Examiner's conclusion that Beer's seams are "substantially" vertical. Appellant also argues that the Examiner's modification to Scholz based upon O'Farrell to include a seal wherein bag material extends above the magnet, but then folds down over to enclose the magnet is improper because Scholz touts the benefits of increased opening speed of the container due to the extension of the bag above the magnet to provide for a better grasping surface. Br. 4. Combinations often result in trade-offs between benefits added and those removed. Here, the benefit of enclosing the magnet may outweigh the benefit of the tab extension. Additionally, as seen in O'Farrell, alternative opening methods of pushing on the ends of the magnets to cause them to pop open and bend outwardly may also offset the loss of the advantages associated with the bag extensions. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error. 4 Appeal2017-011273 Application 13/566,558 Likewise, Appellant argues that the diverging seams in Beer would narrow the bag opening, thus limiting the size and nature of the materials that can be placed into the bag. Br. 5. The gusseting taught in Beer, however, provides additional benefits of added interior space that may offset the loss of opening width, and as such the Examiner's proposed combination may still be considered beneficial to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection. 2 DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 2 Appellant also argues that the proposed modification "eliminates the need to form a looped surface for attachment to a mop head as advocated by the prior art while retaining the function of such a looped surface." Br. 6. Appellant does not apprise us of where the terms "mop," "head," or "looped" appear in Appellant's Specification or in the prior art. Accordingly, we do not regard this argument as commensurate in scope with the claim or relevant to the prior art at issue. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation