Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

14479424 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
14/479,424 09/08/2014 Uwe Schneider 11683C 6253
27752 7590 11/17/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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 UWE SCHNEIDER and JOSEPH HUNG LAM
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—9 and 11—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed January 8, 2016 (“Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed June 6, 2016 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed August 25, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file a Reply
Brief.
2 Appellant, The Procter & Gamble Company, is also the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
The claims are directed to methods for tucking side panels of pant
diapers. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for tucking first and second opposing side
panels into a chassis of a pant diaper, the chassis including an
absorbent core having opposing longitudinal side edges
defining a lateral width, the chassis further including an inner
surface and an outer surface, the chassis having longitudinally
opposing first and second waist regions, longitudinally
opposing first and second waist end edges disposed in the first
and second waist regions adjacent to the respective waist end
edges, a crotch region longitudinally intermediate of the first
and second waist regions, the first and second side panels
connecting the first waist region with the second waist region to
form a waist opening and a pair of leg openings, the method
comprising the steps of:
positioning the chassis between a first conveyor having a
first vacuum zone and a second conveyor having a second
vacuum zone;
applying a first vacuum force from the first vacuum zone
to the first waist region and applying a second vacuum force
from the second vacuum zone to the second waist region,
wherein the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone
each define lateral widths that are smaller than the lateral width
of the absorbent core;
holding the first waist region of the chassis apart from the
second waist region of the chassis using opposing vacuum
forces from the first and second vacuum zones;
advancing the chassis in a machine direction with the
first and second conveyors; and
discharging air against the first and second panels to push
the first side panel and the second side panel a distance laterally
inward toward each other; and
2
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
creating longitudinal folds in the chassis at the outer
longitudinal edges of the absorbent core.
Br. 10—11 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kober
Franklin et al. (“Franklin”)
Vogt et al. (“Vogt”)
Couillard et al. (“Couillard”)
Coenen et al. (“Coenen”)
US 5,300,007
US 6,723,035 B2
US 6,888,143 B2
US 7,322,925 B2
US 7,335,150 B2
Apr. 5, 1994
Apr. 20, 2004
May 3, 2005
Jan. 29, 2008
Feb. 26, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1—9, 12, and 13 over
Franklin in view of Kober and Vogt; and (2) claim 11 over Franklin in view
of Kober and Vogt, in further view of either Coenen or Couillard. Final Act.
2; Ans. 2 and 5.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we
are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm
3
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection of claims 1—8
Appellant argues claims 1—8 as a group. Br. 3—5. We select claim 1
as representative of the group.
Appellant argues that the combination of Franklin, Kober, and Vogt
do not teach claim 1 ’s required steps of (1) applying a first vacuum force
from the first vacuum zone to the first waist region and applying a second
vacuum force from the second vacuum zone to the second waist region,
wherein the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone each define
lateral widths that are smaller than the lateral width of the absorbent core;
and (2) creating longitudinal folds in the chassis at the outer longitudinal
edges of the absorbent core. Br. 3^4.
The Examiner finds that Franklin fails to expressly teach that the
width of the vacuum zone is less than the lateral width of the absorbent cord
of the chassis assembly, but that Vogt discloses a vacuum conveyor with this
feature. Ans. 3^4 (citing Vogt Fig. 29). The Examiner finds that Franklin
teaches that the vacuum zone would have been capable of customization as a
function of the size of the undergarment pant being manufactured. Id. at 3.
The Examiner also finds that Vogt teaches vacuum zones that do not extend
to the complete width of the absorbent core and teaches creating folds in the
undergarment at the lateral longitudinal edges of the absorbent core. Id. at
7—8; see also Vogt Fig. 29. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify Franklin’s conveyor vacuum zone to be narrower than the lateral
width of the absorbent core of the pant diaper, as taught in Vogt, where
4
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
Franklin expressed that the skilled artisan would have determined the
appropriate vacuum zone size as a function of the item being manufactured.
Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that Franklin teaches that the longitudinal edges of
the vacuum zones determine the location of the side panel folds. Br. 4.
Appellant argues that modifying Franklin, as the Examiner proposes, would
render Franklin’s invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change
the principle of operation. Id. at 5. Appellant further argues that the
Examiner errs in characterizing the purpose of Franklin’s invention as
“merely folding side panels.” Id.
Franklin teaches a method of tucking side panels into a main body of
a pant-like garment while maintaining control over the side panel fold
location. Franklin col. 1,11.8—10. Franklin teaches that vacuum zones,
which hold the garment in place on the conveyors, can be the same width,
wider than, or narrower than the front and back regions of the body portion.
Id. col. 2,11. 22—37. The Examiner’s proposed modification of Franklin’s
invention with the disclosure of Vogt does not render the invention
unsatisfactory to tuck side panels into the body of the pant-like garment in a
consistent location or change the basic principle under which Franklin was
designed to operate, i.e., positioning the body portion of the garment
between upper and lower conveyors, each having a vacuum zone which pull
apart the front and back regions of the body portion, allowing the side panels
to be pushed into the body portion by a mechanical tucking device or a pair
of fluid (air) streams. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). “ft
is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings
from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
5
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
elements.” In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (further citations
omitted).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Vogt discloses
a vacuum conveyor having lateral width that is less that the lateral width of
the absorbent core of the chassis of a pant diaper and creating longitudinal
folds in the chassis at the outer longitudinal edges of the absorbent core. See
Ans. 4.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Franklin in view of Kober and
Vogt. We sustain the rejection of claims 2—8 for the same reasons as
claim 1.
Rejection of claims 9, 12, and 13
On the substantive merits, Appellant relies on the same arguments
offered in support of claim 1. (Br. 5—8). As discussed above, we find these
arguments to be unpersuasive. We consequently sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9, 12, and 13.
Rejection of claim 11
Appellant argues that neither Coenen nor Couillard correct the
asserted deficiencies of Franklin, Kober, and Vogt. Br. 8. We sustain the
rejection of claim 11 for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—
13 is affirmed.
6
Appeal 2017-002030
Application 14/479,424
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)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
7