Ex Parte Ruman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12642226 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/642,226 12/18/2009
23556 7590 09/27/2016
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC,
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcille Faye Ruman
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.
64646736US01 2134
EXAMINER
BRODIE, MARGARET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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 MARCILLE FA YE RUMAN
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1-17
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed December 18, 2009,
the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed October 16, 2013,
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Br.) filed March 17, 2014, and the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) mailed May 21, 2014.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
as unpatentable over Durrance3 in view Trennepohl4 and Belau, 5 and claims
18-21 as unpatentable over Durrance in view of Trennepohl, and Belau or
Cowell. 6 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for manufacturing
disposable absorbent articles having multiple printed components. Spec.
1 :24--26. Appellant discloses that, in the largely automated process for
manufacturing disposable absorbent articles such as diapers and other
incontinence articles, certain components including support layers, absorbent
pads, elastic components, fastener components, etc., must be positioned or
aligned with respect to each other and other components to produce an
acceptable article. Id. at 1: 10-15. While printing of graphics on side panels
can be done, these panels need to be cut, rotated, and placed to align with
outercover and back panel die cut outs. Id. at 1 : 16-19. Appellant discloses
that registrations systems that are necessary due to address printing
variability and to properly position leg shape and to maintain leg size are
inadequate. Id. at 1:19-21. Therefore, Appellant's method provides a side
panel strip having a front leg band stripe portion, a back leg band stripe
portion, and a waistband stripe portion. Id. at 1:27-2:3.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
3 Durrance et al., US 2002/0002358 Al, published Jan. 3, 2002.
4 Trennepohl et al., US 2005/0132872 Al, published Jun. 5, 2008.
5 Belau et al., US 2003/0229325 Al, published Dec. 11, 2003.
6 Cowell et al., US 2004/0127883 Al, published Jul. 1, 2004.
2
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
1. A method for manufacturing a disposable absorbent article
having multiple printed components, the method comprising:
providing a web of side panel having a longitudinal
direction;
separating a strip from the web of side panel material,
wherein the strip has a long dimension;
printing the strip or the web of side panel material with a
front leg band stripe, a back leg band stripe, and a waistband
stripe prior to attaching the strip to the web of chassis material,
wherein the strip has a front leg band stripe portion, a back leg
band stripe portion, and a waistband stripe portion;
attaching the strip to a web of chassis material to form an
article assembly web, the web of chassis material having a
machine direction (MD); and
cutting the article assembly web to produce an individual
article.
Remaining independent claim 18 similarly recites printing a web of
side panel material with a front leg band stripe, a back leg band stripe, and a
waistband stripe, but additionally includes a step of printing a web of chassis
material with a back leg band segment and a step of rotating a strip from the
web of side panel material. Br. 9.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent method claims 1 and 18 separately.
However, Appellant's arguments regarding claim 18 are substantially the
same as those presented for claim 1. Accordingly, our review of the issues
with regard to claim 1 apply with equal force to Appellant's arguments
regarding claim 18.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellant's claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that Appellant's arguments are insufficient to
3
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1.
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm
the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer and the Final
Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner finds Durrance teaches a process substantially as
claimed, except for printing a strip of web side panel material with a pattern.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds Belau and Trennepohl each teach
methods of making absorbent articles comprising printing side panel
materials with a front leg band stripe, a back leg band stripe, and a waist
band stripe. Id., citing Belau, Fig. 1 and Trennepohl, Figs. 9, 11, 13, 15A,
16A, 16B, and 20-25. The Examiner states, "any marking can be
interpreted as a band stripe." Id. at 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds
Belau, Figure 3, teaches a side panel material may be printed prior to
attachment to the chassis material and may include repeating or random
prints or graphics. Id. at 5, citing Belau i-f 60. With regard to Trennepohl,
the Examiner finds the articles may include first, second, and third graphic
zones to join multiple overlapping components, where the printing patterns
including colored bands or graphics are added to mask or draw attention
away from component seams. Id., citing Trennepohl i-f 117. Based on the
teachings of Belau and Trennepohl, the Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to pre-print Durrance's strip of side panel material to
"predictably eliminate or significantly minimize the presence of any
discontinuity between the connected absorbent article components," to
provide desirable product information or graphics on the article, and to
provide aids for registration in the manufacturing process. Id.
4
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness because the combination of Durrance, Belau, and
Trennepohl has not been shown to teach or suggest the steps of printing a
side panel material with the front leg, back leg, and waistband stripes prior
to attaching the side panel material to a web of chassis material as required
by the claims. Br. 4. Appellant asserts that Belau, Figure 1, does not appear
to teach printing the side panel material with front leg, back leg and
waistband stripes.7 Id. As to Trennepohl, Appellant asserts that the figures
relied on by the Examiner do not teach side panels attached to a chassis, or
side panels printed with front leg, back leg, and waistband stripes as required
by the claims. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Jung
supra. The Examiner finds Belau teaches that discrete component material
such as side panels are printed prior to attachment to a web of chassis
material. Ans. 3--4; see also Belau Fig. 3 (depicting preprinted attachment
panels). Appellant does not address or otherwise dispute this finding with
any particularity.
The Examiner relies on Trennepohl for teaching that the printing can
be front leg, back leg, and waistband stripes. Ans. 3. We note Appellant
7 Yet, Appellant further asserts that Belau teaches "the use of graphics to
illustrate printing the side panel material with a front leg band stripe, a back
leg band stripe, and a waistband stripe as is currently claimed." Br. 4. It is
unclear why Appellant follows an assertion that Belau fails to teach printing
the side panel material with these stripes with an admission that Belau
teaches use of graphics to illustrate printing the side panel material with
these stripes. For purposes of our decision, we have treated the above-
quoted sentence as inadvertently omitting a negative to the apparent
admission.
5
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
addresses each of Trennepohl' s figures cited by the Examiner in support of
this finding individually. However, the focus in the obviousness analysis is
what the cited references, including Trennepohl, suggest as a whole to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (stating test of obviousness is "whether the teachings of the prior art,
taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention"). As the
Examiner finds, certain of Trennepohl' s figures show front and back leg
band stripes as well as waistband stripes for an absorbent article, "as worn
by a user." Ans. 3, citing Trennepohl, Fig. 20 and i-f 86. The Examiner finds
that Trennepohl, Figure 3, depicts an inside view of the Figure 20 article,
and further that the printed side panel material is attached to an absorbent
core. Id., citing Trennepohl i-f 49. There is also no dispute that Trennepohl
teaches side panels containing printed graphics attached to a chassis
material. Compare Br. 4 (e.g., "Trennepohl does illustrate side panels in
Fig. 11 '') with Ans. 3 (e.g., "Applicant agrees Trennepohl teaches side
panels in Figure 11.") However, though Appellant disputes that Trennepohl
teaches these side panels are printed with leg and waistband stripes,
Appellant does not address the Examiner's determination that Trennepohl
suggests such stripes may be printed on these side panels based on, inter
alia, Figures 9 and 20. Each of these figures depicts printed graphics
representative of leg bands and waistband. 8 Trennepohl i-fi-195 and 117-121.
8 Although the Examiner states that any band of markings on the web of side
panel material is interpreted to be a leg band or waistband stripe (Ans. 3),
Appellant does not dispute with any particularity that Trennepohl' s graphics
read on stripes.
6
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
In other words, the Examiner's rejection considers Trennepohl's figures, not
individually, but as a whole.
Although the Examiner states that any band of markings on the web of
side panel material is interpreted to be a leg band or waistband stripe (Ans.
3), Appellant does not dispute with any particularity that Trennepohl's
graphics read on stripes. Even assuming arguendo that Appellant had
adequately raised an argument in this regard, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's findings that Trennepohl teaches printing
band or graphics in the leg and waistband zones that read on stripes.
Trennepohl i-f 95 ("As illustrated FIG. 9, 'representative of a leg band' means
graphics 5010 that resemble the look of leg bands ... Likewise, as
illustrated FIG. 9, 'representative of waist band' means graphics 5010 that
resemble the look of waist bands"); i-f 120 ("The visual appearance of a
waistband (e.g., graphic 5010 in the waist band zone 253) on an absorbent
article (e.g., 1020) may be created or highlighted by a color field (e.g., 318)
or graphic (e.g., 5010) ... printing a colored band or graphic (e.g., 5010).")
Finally, although Appellant argues there is no apparent reason to
modify Durrance in view of Belau and Trennepohl as the Examiner proposes
(Br. 3), Appellant does not address the Examiner's stated rationale for the
combination with any particularity. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Answer, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Durrance, Trennepohl, and Belau or Cowell is affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-008328
Application 12/642,226
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).
AFFIRMED
8