Ex Parte Van Gompel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2013

10837155 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2013)

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.
10/837,155 04/30/2004 Paul T. Van Gompel 19,805 2020
23556 7590 03/15/2013
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tara Pohlkotte
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3764
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAUL T. VAN GOMPEL, YUNG H. HUANG,
GREGORY K. HALL and CEDRIC A. DUNKERLY
____________________

Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-8, 11-17, 20-28, 31-37, and 40-43. Claims 9, 10,
18, 19, 29, 30, 38, and 39 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 31 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fastening system suitable for incorporation into a
disposable absorbent article, the fastening system comprising:
a male component having a plurality of hook elements;
and
a female component adapted for releasable engagement
with the male component, the female component comprising a
web having a fibrous structure,
wherein the female component contains at least a first
area and a second area, the first area is modified by applying
ink or polymeric material to a surface of the female component
contacted by the male component such that a peak shear force
to disengage the male component from the first area is reduced
by no less than 5% and no more than 70% of a peak shear force
to disengage the male component from the second area, and
at least a portion of the female component is stretchable.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 20, 21, 23, 26-28, 31, 32, 35-37, and
40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Datta (US 5,554,239; iss. Sep. 10, 1996);
Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

3
2. Claims 3-5, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Datta and McCormack (US 5,997,981;
iss. Dec. 7, 1999); and
3. Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Datta and Wood (US 4,973,326; iss. Nov. 27, 1990).

OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 20, 21, 23, 26-28, 31, 32, 35-37, and 40-43 -
Datta
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 31 each include a fastening system for an
absorbent article having male and female components that engage one
another. The female component defines first and second areas with “the first
area modified by applying ink or polymeric material to a surface of the
female component contacted by the male component” to provide “a peak
shear force to disengage the male component from the first area [that] is
reduced by no less than 5% and no more than 70% of a peak shear force to
disengage the male component from the second area.” The Examiner finds
that Datta discloses each of the features found in claims 1, 11, 20, and 31
including the first area 82 of the female component 52 providing a peak
shear force to disengage the male component 54 that is less than the peak
shear force provided by the second area 81, with the adhesive 80 of Datta
being the polymeric material applied to the first area 82 of the female
component 52. Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Datta does not
specifically teach the peak shear force provided by the first area 82 being no
less than 5% and no more than 70% of the peak shear force provided by the
Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

4
second area 81.1 Ans. 3-4. The Examiner reasons that it would be obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed peak shear force
relationship between the first and second areas “since it has been held where
the general conditions of the claims . . . are disclosed in the prior art, finding
the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans.
4.
Appellants contend that the adhesive in Datta is not applied to the
surface of the female component 52 as required by the claims. App. Br. 5.
We disagree. As explained by the Examiner, the polymeric material
(adhesive 80) of Datta is applied to the surface of the female component 52
when it bleeds through to the surface of the female component 52 from the
base. Ans. 7. The bleed through results in the adhesive 80 being applied to
at least a portion of the surface of the female component 52, such as portions
of the loops 66 in the first area 82. See Datta, fig. 3 and col. 10, ll. 57-64.
Appellants further contend that the loops 66 in the first area 82 of
Datta are unable to engage the male component 54 as a result of the adhesive
bleed through, citing column 10, line 60 through column 11, line 11 of
Datta. App. Br. 6. However, the cited portion of Datta simply states that the
adhesive bleed through may “effectively deaden some of the loops 66 so
they are not effective to engage the hook fasteners 54.” Datta, col. 10, l. 60
– col. 11, l. 11. Appellants attempt to distinguish the claimed arrangement
from Datta, noting that the claims require “a reduction in peak shear force of
at least 5% but no more than 70% - that is, the hooks must still be able to
engage the first area in the present claims.” App. Br. 6. However, the

1 The Examiner appears to inadvertently switch reference numerals 81 and
82, referring to the first area as element 81 and the second area as element
82 in the Answer. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

5
claimed first area can itself be considered somewhat deadened and
ineffective due to the reduced shear force resulting from the ink or
polymeric material on the first area being thirty percent (reduced by seventy
percent), for example, of the shear force provided by the claimed second
area. Similarly, and as explained by the Examiner, Datta does not require
that all of the loops in the first area 82 are entirely deadened and completely
ineffective. Ans. 7. For example, Figure 3 of Datta shows at least a portion
of some of the loops in the first area 82 extending beyond the adhesive 80,
contrary to Appellants’ position that the first area 82 in Datta is entirely
deadened and completely ineffective due to the adhesive bleed through.
Further, the Examiner explains that “[t]he degree to which the
effectiveness of the loop material is diminished would have been obvious to
optimize to provide a reduction in peak shear force of no less than 5% and
no more than 70%.” Ans. 8; see also Ans. 4 (“finding the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art”). Appellants do not
address this rationale, and therefore, do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning.
For these reasons, we are not convinced of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 20, and 31. Claims 2, 6-8, 12, 15-17,
21, 23, 26-28, 32, and 35-37 depend from claim 1, 11, 20, or 31 and are not
argued separately. Therefore, claims 2, 6-8, 12, 15-17, 21, 23, 26-28, 32,
and 35-37 fall with claims 1, 11, 20, and 31.
Although the Examiner lists claims 40-43 as rejected, the Examiner
does not address claims 40-43 in the rejection based solely on Datta. Claims
40-43 depend from claim 1, 11, 20, or 31 and each further recites that “the
first area is modified with a wax-based ink.” In Appellants’ arguments
Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

6
regarding the combination of Datta and Wood, discussed below, Appellants
contend that “Datta . . . [does not] disclose the use of inks to modify a
female or loop-style fastening component, much less the use of wax-based
inks to do so.” App. Br. 7. Because the Examiner has failed to address
these claims, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 40-43.

Claims 3-5, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 33, and 34 - Datta and McCormack
Appellants rely on the dependence from claim 1, 11, 20, or 31 for the
patentability of claims 3-5, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 33, and 34, and maintain that
the additional McCormack reference fails to correct alleged deficiencies in
Datta. App. Br. 6. Because we disagree that Datta is deficient in rendering
claims 1, 11, 20, and 31 unpatentable, as discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3-5, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 33, and 34.

Claims 40-43 - Datta and Wood
Claims 40-43 depend from claim 1, 11, 20, or 31 and each further
recites that “the first area is modified with a wax-based ink.” Appellants
contend that “[n]either Datta nor Wood disclose the use of inks to modify a
female or loop-style fastening component, much less the use of wax-based
inks to do so.” App. Br. 7.
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 31 each recite that “the first area is modified by
applying ink or polymeric material.” The Examiner cited the adhesive of
Datta as teaching a polymeric material. Ans. 3. The Examiner has made no
finding regarding an ink being taught by Datta or Wood and has provided no
reasoning why it would be obvious to include the claimed ink in Datta.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 40-43.
Appeal 2011-001431
Application 10/837,155

7
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 11-17, 20-
28, and 31-37.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 40-43.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls