Ex Parte Roe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2017

13034812 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/034,812 02/25/2011 Donald Carroll Roe 11626 1538
27752 7590 02/06/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2017 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 DONALD CARROLL ROE and MARK JAMES KLINE
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donald Carroll Roe and Mark James Kline (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1 and 3—20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a disposable absorbent
article. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
1. A disposable absorbent article comprising:
a) a chassis having a front region with a front edge, a rear
region with a back edge, a crotch region between the front
region and the rear region, and a pair of opposing longitudinal
edges, said chassis comprising an absorbent core having front
and back edges wherein said absorbent core is substantially
cellulose free;
b) first and second elastically elongatable ears, each of said first
and second ears having upper and lower edges and a transverse
axis, each of said upper and lower edges having proximal and
distal ends, said first and second ears defining a back section of
said absorbent article that is present between said back edge of
said chassis and a line connecting the respective lower ends of
the lower edge of said first and second ears; and
c) first and second fastening tabs respectively connected to a
distal portion of said first and second elastically elongatable
ears, each of said first and second fastening tabs having upper
and lower edges and a transverse axis, wherein said upper and
lower edges of said fastening tabs are asymmetric relative to the
transverse axis of the fastening tabs,
wherein the back section of said absorbent article comprises
less than 5 grams of a particulate absorbent polymer material;
wherein the transverse axis of the fastening tabs and the back
edge of the absorbent core are separated by a longitudinal
distance of less than 50 mm.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1 and 3—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roe (US 5,989,236, issued Nov. 23, 1999); and
2
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
(ii) claims 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roe in view of Busam (US 2008/0125735 Al,
published May 29, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3—9— Unpatentability over Roe
The Examiner finds that Roe discloses nearly ah limitations for the
disposable absorbent article set forth in claim 1, including an absorbent core
that is cellulose-free, and having a back section comprising less than 5 grams
of particulate absorbent polymer material, but does not specifically disclose
that a transverse axis of first and second fastening tabs is separated
longitudinally by 50 mm or less from a back edge of the absorbent core.
Final Act. 3—A. The Examiner finds that the general conditions of this
limitation are present in Roe, and concludes that the claimed spacing would
have been obvious from finding optimum or workable ranges, using only
routine skill in the art. Id. at 4. The Examiner further posits that too small
of a distance between these two portions of the absorbent article would
result in an undesirable overlap of the fastening tabs and absorbent core,
whereas too large of a distance would compromise the area of coverage of
the absorbent core. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding that Roe discloses
an absorbent core that is substantially cellulose-free, errs in finding that the
Roe back section has less than 5 grams of a particulate absorbent polymer
material, and errs in determining that it would have been obvious to have the
3
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
transverse axis of the fastening tabs be longitudinally spaced from the
absorbent core by 50 mm or less. Br. 2-4.
As to the first argument, Appellants maintain that the passage in Roe
(column 3, lines 56—62) cited by the Examiner does not disclose a cellulose-
free absorbent core. Br. 2—3. Appellants seemingly interpret this passage as
allowing for certain non-cellulosic materials identified therein to be
employed in combination with a cellulosic material, but not allowing the
identified non-cellulosic materials to be used alone or instead of a cellulosic
material. We read the passage differently, and in alignment with the
Examiner’s interpretation—non-cellulosic materials such as “absorbent
foams, absorbent sponges, superabsorbent polymers, absorbent gelling
materials” are stated to be “[e]xamples of other [than comminuted wood
pulp] suitable absorbent materials.” Roe, col. 3,11. 54—61 (emphasis added).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this that any of
the identified materials are suitable for use in place of the cellulosic
comminuted wood pulp. As such, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Roe discloses that its absorbent core may be
cellulose-free.
Appellants’ argument directed to the upper limit of 5 grams of
absorbent material in the back section of the absorbent article merely
discusses a possible advantage as to limiting the amount of absorbent
material so as to provide a thin back section, i.e., that it aids in minimizing
fold-over of the back section. Br. 3^4. The argument does not assign error
4
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
to the Examiner’s finding that the Roe absorbent article meets this claim
limitation.
Appellants’ further argument directed to the recited spacing of the
transverse axis of the fastening tabs and the back edge of the absorbent core
also merely explains that the spacing required by claim 1 is intended to
minimize or eliminate the folding over of the back edge of the absorbent
article. Br. 4. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s position relative to
the obviousness of employing, in the Roe absorbent article, a spacing of
these elements that falls within the claimed range. We are thus not apprised
of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Roe is sustained.
Appellants provide no arguments for the patentability of dependent claims
3—9 separate and apart from claim 1. Br. 4. Accordingly, those claims fall
with claim 1.
Claims 10—20—Unpatentability over Roe andBusam
Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced for claim 1 in
traversing the rejection of claims 10—20 over Roe and Busam. Br. 4—5. For
the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner
error. The rejection of claims 10—20 is therefore also sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
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).
5
Appeal 2015-002684
Application 13/034,812
AFFIRMED
6