Ex Parte Shiriike et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

12419539 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MAKOTO SHIRIIKE, SEIJI TSUNEKI,
SEIICHI OHIDE, and HIROYUKI UENO
__________

Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKE W.
JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Procter & Gamble Company (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses “an absorbent article comprising a
backsheet, which comprises a graphic and . . . [a] registration mark located
on opposite surfaces to each other” (Spec. 2:21-22). According to the
Specification, the “backsheet is provided with a graphic and a registration
mark for adjusting the graphic to a predetermined position in the absorbent
article” (id. at 2:26-28).
Claim 1 the only independent claim, reads as follows:
1. An absorbent article comprising a backsheet, a top sheet joined
with the backsheet, and an absorbent core between the backsheet and the top
sheet,
the backsheet extending in a first direction and in a second direction
perpendicular to the first direction, and having a first surface, a second
surface opposing to the first surface, a first edge and a second edge each
extending substantially in the first direction, and a third edge and a fourth
edge each extending substantially in the second direction,
the backsheet being provided with a graphic and a registration mark
for adjusting the graphic to a predetermined position in the absorbent article,
the registration mark being detected when the absorbent article is conveyed
in the first direction in the manufacturing process,
the graphic being imprinted on the first surface, the graphic having a
first direction component and a second direction component, the second
direction component extending substantially continuously from the first edge
to the second edge, and
the registration mark being imprinted on the second surface.

Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Coenen2 and Hensley3 (Ans. 4-6). Claims 2-10 have not

2 Coenen et al., US 6,652,686 B1, Nov. 25, 2003.
3 Hensley et al., US 6,354,984 B1, Mar. 12, 2002.
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

3
been argued separately from claim 1 and, therefore, stand or fall with that
claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). We thus focus our analysis on claim 1.
The issue presented is: Has the Examiner established that the
preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Coenen and
Hensley would have made obvious the absorbent article of claim 1
comprising a backsheet having a graphic printed on a first surface and a
registration mark printed on a second surface that opposes the first surface?
Findings of Fact
FF1. The Examiner finds that “Coenen discloses an absorbent
article . . . comprising a backsheet 54, a topsheet, and an absorbent core”
(Ans. 4).
FF2. The Examiner finds that the “backsheet 54 has a first surface
and a second surface” (id.).
FF3. The Examiner finds that the “backsheet 54 is provided with a
graphic 38 and a registration mark 74, as shown in figure 3, the registration
mark 74 being detected with the article is conveyed in the first direction
during manufacturing” (id.).
FF4. The Examiner finds that Coenen does not disclose a “reference
mark being provided on the second surface of the backsheet” (id.).
FF5. The Examiner finds that “Hensley discloses an absorbent article
having a graphic 120 and a registration mark 116 printed thereon, as shown
in figure 3” (id. at 4-5).
FF6. Hensley’s Figure 3 shows both a graphic and a reference mark
printed on the backsheet or outer cover material 102, i.e. the surface of the
workpiece that faces away from the body, such that the reference marks are
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

4
printed in areas to be trimmed away (Hensley col. 6, ll. 45-48, col. 14, ll. 14-
17).
FF7. The Examiner finds that “Hensley teaches providing the
registration mark on the bottom, or second, surface of the web onto which it
is printed . . . to allow the registration mark to be detectable by a sensor
during the manufacturing process but not [be] visible . . . in the finished
product” (id. at 5).
FF8. The Examiner concludes that it would “have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide the registration mark of Coenen
on the second surface of the backsheet, as taught by Hensley, to allow the
registration mark to be detectable by a sensor during the manufacturing
process but not visible to the consumer in the finished product” (id.).
FF9. Hensley discloses that “it is common to print registration images
periodically along the length of the web, for the sole purpose of providing
reference marks against which other elements can be registered” (Hensley,
col. 2, ll. 7-10).
FF10. Hensley discloses that “reference marks may be printed on the
web in an area where they will be inconspicuous in the finished product” (id.
at col. 2, ll. 10-12).
FF11. Hensley discloses that, in one embodiment, reference marks
“do not depend on visible light for successful detection, and . . . the
sensor/image combination can operate to successfully detect images through
any or all of the materials in the respective work pieces” (id. at col. 13, ll.
27-31).
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

5
FF12. Hensley discloses that a sensor
can be positioned above or below web 106, regardless of
whether the surface on which the image is printed is closer to
the top surface of the web or closer to the bottom surface. As
illustrated, images 116 are disposed on the bottom surface of
web 106 in . . . … while sensor 94 is above the top surface.

(Id. at col. 13, ll. 32-37.)
FF13. Hensley discloses that “[p]referred embodiments employ
reference marks 116 both for detecting the presence or absence of trim
material 82 [i.e. cut-outs] and for registering flowers 120 [i.e. the graphic]
. . . [such that] reference marks are preferably confined inside trim areas”
(Id. at col. 16, ll. 56-66.)
Analysis
Appellants argue that neither Coenen nor Hensley, nor their
combination, “teaches or suggests a graphic and a registration mark
imprinted on respective opposing surfaces of a backsheet” (App. Br. 9).
Appellants argue that Hensley teaches “a ‘graphic 120’ or ‘flower 120’ and
[a] ‘reference mark or image 116’ imprinted on precursor ‘outer cover
material 102’ or ‘baffle 102’” (id.). Appellants argue that Hensley also
teaches reference marks that are “detectable by means other than sensing
visible light” such that detection can occur through layers of material (id.).
Appellants assert, however, that Hensley “does not teach or suggest
imprinting ‘graphic 120’ and ‘reference mark 116’ respectively on opposing
sides of the ‘outer cover material 102’ or ‘baffle 102’” (id.).
Those arguments are not persuasive. Hensley discloses that both a
graphic and a reference mark are printed on the backsheet or outer cover
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

6
material 102 such that the registration mark is printed in areas to be trimmed
away (FFs 5 and 6). Hensley also discloses that it is common to print
registration images along the length of the web for registering other elements
and that such marks may be printed in an area where they will be
inconspicuous in the final product (FFs 9 and 10). Hensley also discloses
that registration marks can be detected by means that allow the detection of
marks within the layers of the absorbent article (FF11). In view of this
disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious for one of skill in the art to print the registration mark on the
opposite of backsheet from the graphic because Hensley discloses that it is
desirable to put registration marks in an inconspicuous place.
Appellants also argue that Hensley “teaches locating its ‘reference
mark or image 116’ on a portion of the precursor web that will be trimmed
away in the manufacturing process, and thus, will not be present on the
backsheet of the final absorbent article product” (App. Br. 9).
That argument is not persuasive. Although Hensley also discloses
preferred embodiments that employ the same reference marks for registering
the graphic and for detecting the presence or absence of leg cut-outs or trim
material (FF13), Hensley also discloses that reference marks made be found
in the final product (FF10). A reference disclosure is not limited only to its
preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests
to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA
1976). Additionally, Coenen discloses that it is well known to use
registration marks that are ultimately found in the final product (FF3). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the cited references would have made
Appeal 2012-003644
Application 12/419,539

7
obvious the use of registration marks on the backsheet, on the opposite side
from the graphic, such that the registration marks are found in the final
absorbent article product.
We affirm, therefore, the rejection of claim 1 as being obvious in view
of Coenen and Henley. Claims 2-10 have not been argued separately and
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii).
Conclusion of Law
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Coenen and Hensley would have made obvious the
absorbent article of claim 1 comprising a backsheet having a graphic printed
on a first surface and a registration mark printed on a second surface that
opposes the first surface.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

lp