Ex Parte Nobile

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2018

13566558 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

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