Ex Parte Ueda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

13283026 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/283,026 10/27/2011
27752 7590 07/21/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KimioUeda
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.
JA-179C 7933
EXAMINER
KIDWELL, MICHELE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2016 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 KIMIO UEDA and JIE TAO
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a disposable absorbent article having a soft-
cloth-like backsheet. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with paragraph numbering added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
1. A disposable absorbent article having a first waist region,
a second waist region and a crotch region connecting the first and
second waist regions, a longitudinal centerline and a transverse
centerline, said disposable absorbent article comprising:
(1) a containment assembly comprising a liquid pervious
topsheet, a liquid impervious backsheet, an absorbent core
disposed between said liquid pervious topsheet and said liquid
impervious backsheet, and a pair of elasticized leg cuffs that are
disposed inboard of said side edges of said containment
assembly, said liquid impervious backsheet comprising a plastic
film having inner and outer surfaces;
(2) a first side panel joined to said containment assembly
at said first waist region, wherein said first side panel is disposed
on a left portion of the absorbent article relative to said
longitudinal centerline;
(3) a second side panel joined to said containment
assembly at said first waist region, wherein said second side
panel is disposed on a right portion of the absorbent article
relative to said longitudinal centerline;
( 4) a first securement member that extends outboard of
said first side panel, said first securement member comprising a
plurality of hooks;
( 5) a second securement member that extends outboard of
said second side panel, said second securement member
comprising a plurality of hooks; and
( 6) a nonwoven web covering only a discrete
predetermined portion of the outerfacing surface of the plastic
film, said nonwoven web comprising a landing zone, said
landing zone being disposed in said second waist region and
being capable of engaging the hooks of said pluralities of hooks
of said first and second securement members; wherein said
nonwoven web comprises bi-component fibers.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jackson us 5,614,281 Mar. 25, 1997
2
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
Young
Newkirk
us 5,626,571
US 6,417,122 Bl
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
May 6, 1997
Jul. 9, 2002
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Jackson.
Claims 2--4, 6-8, 15-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson and Newkirk.
Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jackson and Young.
Claims 10-13 and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jackson.
OPINION
1A .. ppellants argue claims 1, 9, 14, and 22 as a group. Appeal Br. 3-5.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 9, 14, and 22 will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 CPR§ 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Jackson teaches all limitations of claim 1
(Non-Final Action, mailed September 3, 2013, 2-3). In relevant part, the
Examiner found that Jackson discloses "a nonwoven web (column 14, lines
25 - 37) covering only a discrete predetermined portion of the outer facing
surface ( 62, 7 6) of the plastic film, said discrete predetermined portion
comprising a landing zone (62, 76), .... " Final Act. 3. Appellants
3
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
challenge whether Jackson meets the limitations in claim 1, paragraph 6,
above. Specifically, Appellants argue:
Claims 1 and 14 require, among other things, that the
nonwoven web cover only a discrete predetermined portion of
the outerfacing surface of the plastic film and that the
nonwoven web itself forms a landing zone disposed in the
second waist region of the diaper.
Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis in original). Appellants then argue that "Jackson's
outer cover 62 (cited by the Office Action to correspond to Appellant's [sic]
nonwoven web 90) does not cover only a discrete predetermined portion of
the outer-facing surface of the plastic film."
The Examiner's Answer addresses Appellants' argument, explaining
that Jackson provides a nonwoven web (citing Jackson 5:32---6:9) in the form
of a landing zone #7 6 (Figure 6). Answer 9. The Examiner then points out
that the landing zone (7 6) covers only a predetermined portion of the outer
facing surface ( 62) of the plastic film (citing Jackson 14:29-31 and Figure
6.) Id. Appellants' Reply merely adopts their earlier arguments and makes
no substantive response to the Examiner's explanation. Reply 1.
In light of the Examiner's Answer, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner errs in finding that Jackson meets limitation ( 6) of claim 1. The
Examiner provids "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner's position is not challenged in the
Reply Brief. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 and with it the
rejections of 9, 14, and 22.
4
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
The remaining three rejections reject claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-21, and
23-26. Appellants make similar arguments in connection with each of these.
Appeal Br. 6-7. In each case Appellants identify the art relied on by the
Examiner and state that none of the references discloses "the nonwoven web
'cover[ing] only a discrete portion of the outer-facing plastic film, said
nonwoven web comprising a landing zone, said landing zone being disposed
in said second waist region and being capable of engaging the hooks of said
pluralities of hooks of said first and second securement members' as
required by Appellant's [sic] independent claims." Appeal Br. 6, 7.
Appellants also argue that the reference(s) relied on in each rejection fail(s)
to provide motivation to the skilled person to advantageously modify the
arrangements disclosed therein to arrive at the arrangement required by
Appellant's claims. Id. at 6, 7.
For the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, we agree with
the Examiner that Jackson does disclose the non-woven web limitation
(quoted immediately above), and so the failure of the secondary references
to show this feature is not persuasive.
Appellants make no substantive argument to support their assertions
that there is no motivation to combine the references in the manner asserted
by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 6-7) and for this reason we are not persuaded
by them. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011),
Accordingly, we have not been apprised of error in the Examiner's
findings, and we affirm the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-21, and 23-
26.
5
Appeal2014-007339
Application 13/283,026
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-26 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)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
6