Ex Parte Seth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2008

10686123 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAYSHREE SETH, RONALD W. AUSEN and KIM C. SACHS
____________

Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: June 24, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5-42. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a cleaning sheet. Figure 6 below shows a
schematic drawing of one embodiment of the cleaning sheet.

The embodiment shown in Figure 6 includes a protrusion-containing
backing element of strands 70 and 78 with hook elements 72 extending from
strands 78. The backing element is embedded into a fibrous substrate to
form the cleaning sheet (Spec. 3:9-11; 3:22-28; and 12:17-21). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A cleaning sheet comprising a composite of protrusion
containing backing element embedded within a fibrous substrate, the
composite having a first face and a second face and the protrusion
containing backing element having a first face and a second face with
protrusions extending from at least one face of the composite, wherein
the protrusion containing backing element is embedded within the
fibrous substrate such that individual fibers forming the fibrous
substrate form at least in part the first and second face of the
composite, the protrusion containing backing element is formed of
substantially continuous first and second sets of intersecting strand
elements extending in at least two directions where at least one set of
2
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

strand elements have integral extrusion formed protrusions extending
from at least one face of the strands, the two sets of strands being
separated from one another and where individual fibers forming the
fibrous substrate are located between the strands.

Appellants request review of the sole rejection maintained by the
Examiner, namely, the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-42 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over US 2003/0049407 A1 issued Mar. 13, 2003 to
Kacher et al. (“Kacher”) in view of US 4,537,819 issued Aug. 27, 1985 to
Schortmann et al. (“Schortmann”) and US 3,638,270 issued Feb. 1, 1972 to
Schlegel, Jr. et al. (“Schlegel”).

II. DISCUSSION
The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: has the Examiner established that the prior art as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art forming the
claimed cleaning sheet with a protrusion containing backing element of the
claimed construction embedded within a fibrous substrate?
We answer this question in the negative.
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In
order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show
that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the
prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
3
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoted with
approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)).
According to the Examiner, Kacher suggests a cleaning sheet having a
protrusion-containing backing element affixed to a substrate that can be a
nonwoven fabric and can comprise a scrim, and while Kacher does not
embed the backing element into the nonwoven, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to embed as claimed because, as taught by
Schortmann, “this configuration provides the best cleaning and absorbing
material.” (Ans. 4.)
However, as pointed out by Appellants, the cleaning tool of
Schortmann contains different materials for different functions than those of
Kacher (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2-7).
Kacher describes a cleaning sheet having protrusions for removing
debris such as hair, dirt, and dust from soft surfaces such as carpeting and
upholstery (Kacher, ¶ 2). The cleaning sheet is formed by either attaching
strips or pieces of adhesive-backed hook material such as VELCRO onto a
substrate or “printing” the protrusions directly onto the substrate (Kacher ¶¶
111-114; ¶ 120; see also Example 1 at ¶ 184). The substrate can be a
nonwoven, woven, or a polymeric film (Kacher ¶ 43). Figures 1 and 2
below show one embodiment of Kacher’s cleaning sheet.
4
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

As shown above, adhesive backed strips (zones 16) of VELCRO hook
material (protrusions 12) are affixed to the face of substrate 14 (Kacher ¶¶
120 and 184-185).
Schortmann describes a composite fabric for scrubbing and cleaning
no wax floors, pots and pans, dishes etc. (Schortmann, col. 1, ll. 5-14 and
col. 1, l. 67 to col. 2, l. 11). The composite fabric consists of nonwoven
webs hydroentangled into a reticulated foam as shown in Figure 2 below:
5
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

Figure 2 of Schortmann shows portions of the foam 12 protruding from the
nonwoven fabric 10 of the web 14 (Schortmann, col. 3, ll. 53-56). The foam
protrusions act as bristles and are firm enough to scrub surfaces, but soft
enough so that they do not scratch the types of surfaces to be cleaned
(Schortmann, col. 2, ll. 1-11). The nonwoven absorbs liquid and entraps dirt
in the liquid within the interior of the fabric (Schortmann, col. 2, ll. 31-34).
“This entrapment of dirt into the fabric is due basically to the open structure
of the nonwoven, which allows the dirt to enter the fabric and, the
hydrophilic nature of the foam and fibers used in the fabric, which absorbs
liquid that has dirt within it.” (Schortmann, col. 3, ll. 24-34).
The scrubbing and cleaning attributes of the Schortmann composite
fabric are due to the combination of the foam and fibers. In the Examiner’s
proposed combination, Kacher’s nonwoven is embedded in the protrusion-
containing strips of that reference (Ans. 3). In the Examiner’s proposed
combination, there is no foam backing. The Examiner has not established
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected to obtain
the dirt absorbing and entrapping quality of Schortmann’s composite fabric
without the absorbent foam backing. Nor has the Examiner established that
those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to successfully embed
a nonwoven on the protrusions (e.g., VELCRO hooks) of Kacher. The
protrusion-containing strips of Kacher are of a very different configuration,
6
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

shape and size than the reticulated foam of Schortmann. The function of the
Schortmann cleaning tool is also different. It is for damp mopping floors or
washing dishes. In contrast, the function of the Kacher cleaning tool is for
removing hair, dirt, and dust from soft surfaces such as carpeting and
upholstery. Based on the differences in functions and materials, differences
not bridged by the Examiner’s reasoning, we determine that the evidence
does not support a conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to embed the nonwoven in the protrusion-containing
strips of Kacher.
Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s determination that the strips
of Kacher are “protrusion containing backing elements” as claimed (Ans. 3).
The claims require a backing element formed of “substantially continuous
first and second sets of intersecting strand elements” (Claim 1 (emphasis
added)). The Examiner finds Figure 1 of Kacher depicts strands of a
rectangular shape (Ans. 3). We do not agree. The VELCRO-type strips
adhered to the substrate of Kacher shown in Figure 1 do not have the
necessary sets of strands. The hook protrusions of the VELCRO extend
from a film-like base, not from the face of strands. Appellants’
Specification does not define strands, but the Specification shows and
describes strands in conformity with the ordinary and accustomed meaning
of strands as “a thread or threadlike part of anything.” See strand.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc.
2006 (accessed: June 11, 2008). The strips of Kacher are not threads or
threadlike.
The claims further define the strand elements as “extending in at least
two directions where at least one set of strand elements have integral
7
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

extrusion formed protrusions extending from the at least one face of the
strands, the two sets of strands being separated from one another,” i.e., such
as the two parallel sets of strands shown in Appellants’ Figure 6 having
protrusions on the upper face of the strands.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Kacher and Schlegel together,
as applied by the Examiner, suggest the claimed intersecting strands with
integral extrusion formed protrusions extending as claimed (Ans. 4-5).
Schlegel describes a cleaning tool suitable for brushes, scouring pads,
etc., and including a woven bristle pile (Schlegel, col. 1, ll. 10-11). The
cleaning tool includes “a base formed of a material for supporting the tool
for cleaning, and a woven cloth backing fabric secured to the base”
(Schlegel, col. 1, ll. 18-21). Monofilaments woven into the backing fabric
form bristles extending away from the backing fabric (Schlegel, col. 1, 21-
31). Figure 6a shows the arrangement as follows.

As shown above, the cleaning tool includes bristles 30 woven into the
backing fabric 31 which is secured to backing fabric 33. We cannot agree
with the rationale advanced in the rejection that the interweaving of bristles
in a woven material as taught by Schlegel provides an adequate suggestion
of crosslaying the strips of Kacher so they intersect as claimed (Ans. 5).

8
Appeal 2008-2391
Application 10/686,123

III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not establish that the prior art as a
whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art forming the
claimed cleaning sheet with a protrusion containing backing element of the
claimed construction embedded within a fibrous substrate.

IV. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

tc

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427

9