Ex Parte Raimondo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2013

11141501 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LISA MARIE RAIMONDO
____________________

Appeal 2011-005606
Application 11/141,501
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005606
Application 11/141,501

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 8-151. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to retail displays of products and
methods of displaying products in retail displays (Spec. 1:4-5).
Claim 8 is illustrative:
8. A retail display for consumer products, said
display comprising:
a. a first packaged disposable absorbent product
exhibiting on the package a first brand identifier;
b. a second packaged disposable absorbent product
exhibiting on the package a second brand identifier different
from said first brand identifier, said second package being
packaged separately from said first package;
c. an additional mark on each separately-packaged first
and second disposable absorbent products and common to both,
said additional mark communicating an attribute common to
each of said first and second disposable absorbent products; and
wherein
d. both the first or second brand identifier and the
common mark are observable by a consumer at a retail point of
sale.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 30, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
September 23, 2010).
Appeal 2011-005606
Application 11/141,501

3
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Cole (US 2005/0065492 A1, pub. Mar. 24, 2005).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cole in view of Official Notice.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cole in view of Ziegler (US 6,831,880 B1, iss. Dec. 14, 2004).

ANALYSIS
After carefully considering Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 3-10),
we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth
on pages 7-11 of the Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 8-15 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh