Ex Parte Wegele

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11899225 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/899,225 09/05/2007 George Vincent Wegele 10889 7720
27752 7590 09/26/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LEE, JAEYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 GEORGE VINCENT WEGELE
____________

Appeal 2011-008400
Application 11/899,225
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008400
Application 11/899,225

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 21-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 21 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
21. A process for manufacturing a multi-ply paper
product, the process comprising the steps of:
providing a first paper web;
providing a second paper web;
providing an embossing roll;
providing a first pressure roll;
providing a second pressure roll;
juxtaposing the first pressure roll and the embossing roll
in an axially parallel relationship to form a first nip having a
first nip width therebetween;
juxtaposing the second pressure roll and the embossing
roll in an axially parallel relationship to form a second nip
having a second nip width therebetween;
providing the first nip width less than the second nip
width;
forwarding the first paper web through the first nip such
that portions of the first paper web are embossed at the first nip
to provide an embossed first paper web; and,
forwarding the embossed first paper web and the second
paper web through the second nip so that the embossed portions
of the first paper web are further embossed and portions of the
second paper web are embossed in registration with the
embossed portions of the first paper web to provide a double-
embossed first paper web and a[n] embossed second paper web.

Appeal 2011-008400
Application 11/899,225

3
Appellant requests review of the following rejections (App. Br. 4)
from the Examiner’s final office action:1
Claims 21-37 stand rejected under 35 USC §103(a) over Donnelly,
US 3,708,366 issued Jan. 2, 1973, in view of Wendler, Jr., US 6,579,594 B2
issued June 17, 2003, and Pratt, US 6,572,722 B1 issued June 3, 2003.
Claims 38-39 stand rejected under 35 US.C. § 103 (a) over Donnelly,
Wendler, Jr., Pratt, and Wells, US 3,414,459 issued Dec. 3, 1968.

OPINION2
Issue
Has the Examiner reversibly erred in the determination that the
combination of Donnelly and Wendler, Jr. would have led a person of
ordinary skill in the art to a process for manufacturing a multi-ply paper
product comprising a first nip width which is less than the second nip width,
the resulting first nip load less than the second nip load as required by the
subject matter of claim 21?
The Examiner found that Donnelly describes a process for
manufacturing a multi-ply paper product comprising forwarding a first paper
web through the first nip such that portions of the first paper web are
embossed at the first nip to provide an embossed first paper web; and,
forwarding the embossed first paper web and the second paper web through
the second nip so that the embossed portions of the first paper web are

1 We note that the Examiner in the Answer has modified the statement of the
rejection. However, the modification was not entered as a new ground of
rejection.
2 Appellants did not argue the dependent claims separately in the Brief. We
will limit our discussion to independent claim 21. Appellants did not
substantively address separately rejected claims 38-39.
Appeal 2011-008400
Application 11/899,225

4
further embossed and portions of the second paper web are embossed in
registration with the embossed portions of the first paper web to provide a
double-embossed first paper web and an embossed second paper web as
required by the subject matter of the independent claim 21. (Ans. 3-4). The
Examiner relied on Wendler, Jr. for describing a process of manufacturing a
multi-ply paper product comprising a plurality of layers which are passed
through the first and second nip wherein the multi-ply layers are bound
together to create a mechanical bond due to the pressure of the first and
second nips. (Id. at 4). The Examiner found that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Donnelly’s process
for manufacturing a multi-ply paper product wherein the second nip pressure
is greater than the first nip pressure as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 21. (Id. at 5).
Appellant’s principal argument is that the Donnelly description of
Fig. 1 discloses that less pressure is exerted on material passing through the
first nip 4 than in the case of the second nip and Wendler, Jr. gives no
indication of the magnitude of the pressures provided upon the combined
web substrates at either nip. (App. Br. 4-5).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s obviousness determination. Donnelly discloses in some
embodiments that the pressure at the second nip does not necessarily have to
be lower than the first nip for adhesion of the web layers. (Col. 1, ll. 19-30).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
pressure applied to the first and second nips in the process of Donnelly could
have been adjusted for adhesion of the web layers. “For obviousness under
Appeal 2011-008400
Application 11/899,225

5
§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
On this record and upon due consideration of Appellant’s arguments,
we find that the weight of the evidence reasonably supports the Examiner’s
obviousness determination.
ORDER
The rejections of claims 21-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED
bar