Ex Parte Rhodes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201913336006 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/336,006 12/23/2011 23556 7590 02/28/2019 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brian K. Rhodes 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. 64765216US01 5717 EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2019 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 BRIAN K. RHODES, SUZANNE M. SCHMOKER, KIMBERLY L. ELLEFSON, JULIE A. PA VELETZKE, KIMBERLY M. DOWNS, and BRENT C. OTIS Appeal2018-005995 1 Application 13/336,0062 Technology Center 3700 Before: CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 17, 2017), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 22, 2017) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 6, 2018). 2 Appellants identify "Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc." as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2018-005995 Application 13/336,006 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to a refastenable, disposable absorbent garment. Spec. 1, 1. 30. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A refastenable disposable absorbent garment defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the garment defining longitudinally spaced apart first and second waist edges extending generally in the transverse direction, the garment comprising: a first waist region contiguous with the first waist edge and defining first and second side edges spaced apart in the transverse direction, the first waist region defining opposed first and second surfaces, wherein the first surface is a body-facing surface and the second surface is a garment facing surface, wherein the first waist region is elastomeric proximal both the first side edge and the second side edge of the first waist region; a second waist region contiguous with the second waist edge and defining first and second side edges spaced apart in the transverse direction; a crotch region that extends between and interconnects the first and second waist regions; the garment further comprising a non-extensible, relatively rigid first fastening component comprising a mechanical fastener attached to the body-facing surface of the first waist region at a location transversely inward from its first side edge and further comprising a non-extensible, relatively rigid second fastening component comprising a mechanical fastener attached to the body-facing surface of the first waist region at a location transversely inward from its second side edge, the first and second fastening components each having a length; wherein the first waist region defines a first flange portion located transversely outward of the first fastening component such that the first flange portion is positioned between the first side edge and the first fastening component and has a first 2 Appeal2018-005995 Application 13/336,006 transverse width defined as the transverse distance from an outward-most edge of the first fastening component to the first side edge and a second flange portion located transversely outward of the second fastening component such that the second flange portion is positioned between the second side edge and the second fastening component and has a second transverse width defined as the transverse distance from an outward-most edge of the second fastening component to the second side edge, wherein the first flange portion is transversely curled toward the garment facing surface of the first waist region along a first flange portion curled length, and wherein the second flange portion is transversely curled toward the garment facing surface of the first waist region along a second flange portion curled length. Br. 7-8 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) and (e) as anticipated by Kinoshita (US 2011/0071489 Al, pub. March 24, 2011). Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kinoshita. ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 9 and 10 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) and (e) because Kinoshita does not teach a "flange portion located transversely outward of the first fastening component," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. With reference to the Examiner's annotated versions ofKinoshita's Figures 1 and 3, the Examiner ostensibly identifies Kinoshita's fixed region 23 as the claimed flange portion. See Final Act. 3---6. The difficulty with the Examiner's 3 Appeal2018-005995 Application 13/336,006 finding, however, is that the fixed portion 23 is not "located transversely outward of the first fastening component [21] such that the first flange portion is positioned between the first side edge and the first fastening component," as required by claim 1. Instead, as pointed out by Appellants (Br. 5), fixed portion 23 is located transversely inward from the first fastening component. See Kinoshita, Figs. 1, 3. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) of independent claim 1, and claims 9 and 10, which depend therefrom. Dependent Claims 2-7 Claims 2-7 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 7-8. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2-7 for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (e) is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation