Ex Parte Schneider

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13434984 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/434,984 03/30/2012
27752 7590 10/03/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Uwe Schneider
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.
12390 1088
EXAMINER
DULKO, MARTA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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 UWE SCHNEIDER
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals the Examiner's final rejection of claims 10-15
and 17. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio
as the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's disclosure relates to methods for manufacturing absorbent
articles, and more particularly, to apparatuses and methods for making
elastic belts for disposable diapers. Spec. 1, 11. 4--5; Abstract. Claim 10 is
representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6) (emphasis added to
identify key limitations in dispute):
10. A method for assembling disposable pant diapers, each
pant diaper comprising a chassis having a first end region and
an opposing second end region separated from each other by a
central region, and having a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis,
the chassis comprising: a topsheet, a backsheet, and an
absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the
backsheet, the method comprising the steps of:
advancing a first continuous substrate layer having a first
surface and an opposing second surface in a machine direction,
and defining a width in a cross direction;
advancing a second continuous substrate layer having a
first surface and an opposing second surface in a machine
direction, and defining a width in a cross direction;
advancing elastic strands in the machine direction in a
stretched state;
intermittently bonding the elastic strands in the stretched
state between the first surface of the first substrate layer and the
first surface of the second substrate layer to form a continuous
elastic laminate, the continuous elastic laminate including
bonded regions and non-bonded regions intermittently spaced
along the machine direction, wherein the elastic strands are
bonded to the first surface of the first substrate layer and the
first surface of the second substrate layer in the bonded regions,
and wherein the elastic strands are not bonded to the first
surface of the first substrate layer and the first surface of the
second substrate layer in the non-bonded regions;
positioning a distal edge of a blade in contact with the
continuous elastic laminate with a length of the distal edge of
the blade extending across all the elastic strands in the
2
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
non-bonded region;
simultaneously severing all elastic strands in the non-
bonded regions of the continuous elastic laminate by applying
pressure to the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer,
and the elastic strands with the distal edge of the blade;
bonding the first substrate layer and the second substrate
layer together with the distal edge of the blade; and
positioning the first end region of each chassis with non-
bonded regions of continuous elastic laminate.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Molee et al.,
(hereinafter "Molee")
Kobayashi et al.,
(hereinafter "Kobayashi")
Ukegawa
US 2003/0089447 Al May 15, 2003
W02011/001944 Al Jan. 6, 2011
US 2012/0258277 Al Oct. 11, 2012
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi2 and further in view of Mo lee.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi and Mo lee as applied to claim 10 above and in
further view of Ukegawa.
2 The Examiner's rejection refers to the corresponding English language
version of the Kobayashi reference, namely, Application No. US
2012/0095429 Al, published Apr. 19, 2012. Ans. 2; Final Act. 3, 6.
3
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
3. Claims 10-15 and 17 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over co-pending Application No. 13/435036 claims 1-17 or co-pending
Application No. 13/435247 claims 1-20. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief dated
November 6, 2014 and the Final Office Action dated February 26, 2014,
which we adopt as our own. Nevertheless, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 10-15 as a group. We select claim 10 as
representative of this group, and claims 11-15 stand or fall with claim 10.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kobayashi and Mo lee
suggests all of the limitations of claim 10 and would have rendered claim 10
obvious. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds that Kobayashi discloses
nearly all of claim 1 O's limitations, "except for the step of simultaneously
severing all elastic strands with a distal edge of the blade extending across
all the elastic strands in the non-bonded regions." Id. at 4. The Examiner,
however, relies on Molee for disclosing this missing limitation. Id.
In particular, the Examiner finds that:
Mo lee is directed to a method for assembling a diaper 10 with
intermittently deactivated elastic belt 3 ("tummy elastics")
4
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
comprising the step of simultaneously severing all elastic
strands in the non-bonded regions of the elastic laminate 52 by
applying a pressure with a distal edge of the blade 900
extending across all the elastic strands 3 in the non-bonded
reg10n.
Final Act. 4 (citing Mo lee, Figs. 1, 8, 9, i-fi-1 55, 82). The Examiner finds
further that "each of [the] four clusters of the elastics in the method of Mo lee
[is] ... a separate non-bonded region" and that "[e]ach of the blades in
Molee sever all the elastics in the corresponding 'non-bonded regions,'" as
claimed. Id. at 4, 5 (citing Mo lee, Fig. 8).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention "to substitute a cutting roller having multiple projections in the
method of Kobayashi with a roller having a blade extending across all the
elastic strands in the non-bonded region as disclosed by Molee, because this
modification would improve softness of the diaper in the belly area by
eliminating multiple pieces of elastic strands and or/ slits [sic, and/ or slits] or
fused spots formed by the cutting roller with multiple projections." Final
Act. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 should be
reversed because the "Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness." App. Br. 3. In particular, Appellant argues that the
combination of Kobayashi and Mo lee does not teach or suggest "positioning
a distal edge of a blade in contact with the continuous elastic laminate with a
length of the distal edge of the blade extending across all the elastic strands
in the non-bonded region" and "simultaneously severing all elastic strands in
the non-bonded regions ... with the distal edge of the blade." Id.
5
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Based on the
record before us, the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 3-5) that the
combination of Kobayashi and Molee suggests all of claim lO's limitations,
including the "positioning a distal edge of a blade" and "simultaneously all
elastic strands" limitations is supported by a preponderance of the evidence
and based on sound technical reasoning. Kobayashi, i-fi-131, 101, 102, 103,
105, 136, Figs. 5, 9, 13; Molee, Figs. 1, 7, 8, 9, i-fi-155, 82.
As the Examiner found (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3), Molee discloses the
steps of positioning a distal edge of a blade and simultaneously severing all
elastic strands in the non-bonded regions of the elastic laminate 52 by
applying a pressure with a distal edge of the blade 900 extending across all
the elastic strands 3 in the non-bonded region. Molee, Figs. 1, 8, 9, i-fi-155,
82. Paragraph 82 of Mo lee explicitly describes a "notched knife 900" which
is "attached to cutting drum 712" and "forms cuts 800 in only those portions
of the carrier layers ... that have tummy elastics 3 located there between."
As the Examiner further found (Ans. 3), Figures 8 and 9 of Mo lee show each
blade 900 cutting all the non-bonded elastics in the same cluster and that
each of the blades severs all the elastics in the same cluster, i.e., non-bonded
region, separated by the regions without any elastics, which reads on the
disputed limitations of claim 10. We discern no reversible error in the
Examiner's factual findings and obviousness analysis in this regard.
Moreover, the Examiner provides a reasonable basis and relies on
sufficient evidence in the record to evince why one of ordinary skill would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of the cited references to
arrive at Appellant's claimed invention. See Final Act. 5 (explaining that
combining Kobayashi's method for assembling a diaper with a roller having
6
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
Molee's blade would improve softness of the diaper in the belly area by
eliminating multiple pieces of elastic strands and/or slits or fused spots
formed by the cutting roller with multiple projections); see also KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (explaining that any need or
problem known in the art can provide a motivation for combining the
elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant fails to direct us to sufficient evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to show why the Examiner's factual findings
and articulated reasoning lack a rational underpinning or are otherwise based
on some other reversible error. Appellant's conclusory assertion that "the
cited combination of Kobayashi and Mo lee does not teach or suggest claim
all the claim limitations" (App. Br. 2), without more, is insufficient to
establish reversible error in this regard. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that this rejection should be reversed because "the
Examiner has not provided any reasoning based on the claim language to
support an assertion that each of the four clusters of the elastics in Mo lee can
be characterized as four separate non-bonded regions." App. Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. It is well established
that "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.")
7
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
As the Examiner points out (Ans. 3), claim 10 requires only that the
non-bonded regions have non-bonded elastics disposed between two
substrates. See claim 10 (App. Br. 6, Claims App'x). Indeed, neither the
claim language nor the Specification defines or requires that the non-bonded
region "extend throughout the entire width of the laminate" (Ans. 3), as
Appellant's argument essentially suggests. Cf In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184-85 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("[L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification."). Moreover, as noted by the Examiner (Ans.
3), Figure 7 of Appellant's Specification shows that the distal edge of the
blade 612a cuts all the non-bonded elastics in the cluster 172 and that the
blade does not substantially extend in the region having no elastics.
Considering the term "non-bonded region" under the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, we discern no reversible error in
the Examiner's technical reasoning and finding that each of the four clusters
of the elastics in Mo lee are construed as four separate non-bonded regions.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Kobayashi and Molee.
Rejection 2
Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and adds the following limitations:
continuously applying adhesive to at least one of the
elastics, the first surface of the first substrate layer, and the first
surface of the second substrate layer in the bonded regions; and
applying adhesive in strips extending in the machine
direction to the first surface of the first substrate layer and the
first surface of the second substrate layer in the non-bonded
regions, wherein the strips are positioned between elastics in
the non-bonded regions.
8
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
App. Br. 8 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kobayashi, Mo lee, and
Ukegawa suggests all of the limitations of claim 17 and would have
rendered claim 17 obvious. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 should be
reversed because "[a]s discussed above, Kobayashi and Molee do not teach
or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 O" and "Ukegawa does not correct the
deficiencies described above with reference to Kobayashi and Molee." App.
Br. 4. We do not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons
discussed above for affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kobayashi,
Molee, and Ukegawa.
Rejections 3
With respect to the Examiner; s provisional rejection of claims 10-15
and 17 for obviousness-type double patenting, i.e., Rejection 3 stated above,
the Appellant offers no substantive argument on the merits in the Appeal
Brief. Rather, Appellant states:
The Office has not yet indicated any allowable claims
with regard to the present application. Therefore, Applicants do
not wish to act upon this rejection at this time by filing a
terminal disclaimer. However, at such time that claims are
indicated as being allowed in the present application,
Applicants request reconsideration for the need for a terminal
disclaimer.
App. Br. 5.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's Rejection 3 has not been
withdrawn and the Appellant offers no substantive argument on the merits,
9
Appeal2015-002877
Application 13/434,984
we summarily affirm the rejection. Cf Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-006013, 2010 WL
889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection
-the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.") (cited with approval in In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
We note that the two previously co-pending patent applications upon
which the Examiner's provisional double-patenting rejection is based, i.e.,
Application No. 13/435036 (claims 1-17) and Application No. 13/435247
(claims 1-20), are no longer co-pending and have since issued as U.S. Patent
Nos. 9,039,855 B2 (issued May 26, 2015) and 9,028,632 B2 (issued May 12,
2015), respectively.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claims 10-15 and 1 7 are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
10