Ex Parte Sanz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2014

11329797 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIGUEL BRANDT SANZ, PETER DZIEZOK, RALF GEILICH,
and CARSTEN HEINRICH KREUZER
____________

Appeal 2012-005967
Application 11/329,797
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1, 2, 18, 20, and
28–35 (App. Br. 1).3 Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Real Party in Interest is The Procter & Gamble Company of
Cincinnati, Ohio (App. Br. 1).
2 This Appeal is related to Appeal 2012-002389, Application 11/329,796,
decision reversing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) entered December
19, 2012 (see App. Br. 1).
3 Pending “[c]laims 21-27 stand objected to as depending from a rejected
base claim” (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-005967
Application11/329,797

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a disposable absorbent article. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants’
Brief.
Claims 1, 2, 18, 20, 28, and 30–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yasushi.4
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Yasushi and Meyer.5
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Examiner finds that Yasushi suggests “a topsheet 2; a backsheet 3;
and an absorbent core 23 disposed between the topsheet 2 and the backsheet
3” (Ans. 5; see also id. at 11 (“the fact that the core 23 is only present in part
of the article is immaterial; it is still between a topsheet 2 and backsheet
3”)).
FF 2. Examiner finds that Yasushi’s core 23 includes a “storage layer,” “a
first core wrap sheet 21,” “a second core wrap sheet 22,” and “at least one
transverse stripe of juncture comprising a plurality of bonding elements” (id.
at 5–6).

4 Yasushi Sayama Technical Center, 2004-141257, published May 20, 2004.
“English translation . . . of record” (Ans. 4).
5 Meyer et al., US 2004/0122404 A1, published June 24, 2004.
Appeal 2012-005967
Application11/329,797

3
FF 3. Appellants’ annotated version of Yasushi’s FIG. 3 is reproduced
below:

Yasushi’s FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of a diaper, wherein
“inner surfaces of top and back sheets 2 and 3 refer to the surfaces that face
first core 4” and “inner surfaces of first and second sheets 21 and 22 refer to
the surfaces that face second core 23” (Yasushi ¶ 13; see also App. Br. 7).
FF 4. Examiner finds that Yasushi fails to suggest ultrasonic bonding and
relies on Meyer to make up for this deficiency in Yasushi (Ans. 10).
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ disposable absorbent article comprises: a topsheet; a
backsheet; and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the
backsheet (see Appellants’ independent claim 1). Appellants’ independent
claim 1 requires the absorbent core to include: a first core wrap sheet, a
second core wrap sheet, a storage layer disposed between the first and
second core wrap sheets and at least one stripe of juncture, which has
particular claimed features, joining the first core wrap sheet to the second
core wrap sheet (id.). Examiner finds that Yasushi’s core 23 is bounded by
topsheet and backsheet 2 and 3 (FF 1; see also FF 2). We are not persuaded.
As Appellants explain, “core 23 of the Yasushi reference cannot be
between the topsheet 2 and the backsheet 3 because the topsheet 2 does not
Appeal 2012-005967
Application11/329,797

4
extend to cover the core 23. The topsheet 2 only covers core 4. This is
shown in Figure 3 of the Yasushi reference” (Reply Br. 2). We agree.
Since the topsheet 2 is not present over the second core
23, the Yasushi reference does not describe, teach, or suggest a
first core wrap sheet and a second core wrap sheet, disposed
between a topsheet and a backsheet, and joined with a stripe of
juncture, as recited in part in the Applicant’s [sic] claim 1.
(Id.; see generally App. Br. 7.) Although Examiner disagrees with the
foregoing analysis of the structure of Yasushi’s absorbent article, Examiner
failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a contrary
conclusion, i.e., that “core 23 is . . . between a topsheet 2 and backsheet 3”
(FF 1).
Examiner failed to establish that Meyer makes up for the foregoing
deficiency in Yasushi (see FF 4).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 18, 20, 28, and 30–35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yasushi is reversed.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Yasushi and Meyer is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc