Ex Parte Woo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2010

11059200 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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.
11/059,200 02/16/2005 Rick Ah-Man Woo 9557L 8653
27752 7590 09/24/2010
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
HARDEE, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1796
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RICK AH-MAN WOO, TOAN TRINH,
CHARLES MICHAEL HARDY, KURT ALFRED KARUSSI,
SAMUEL JAMES MORRIS III,
LAWRENCE ANDREW SCHUMACHER,
JOHN WILLIAM SMITH, and
JACQUELINE MARIE DUDERSTADT
__________

Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claim 10, the only pending claim.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 10 is directed to a multiple use fabric conditioning block
comprising a first side having at least one indentation. The block is operably
connectable to the inside surface of a dryer.
The Appellants disclose that the term “indentation” is used in the
broadest sense and “refers to any recess, notch, groove, dimple, angular or
V-shaped cut, valley, concavity, pocket, or depression of a first side of a
multiple use fabric conditioning block.” Spec. 4:2-4. The indentation can
have a depth of up to about 90% of the maximum thickness of the block.
Spec. 5:22-24. The Appellants also disclose that “[t]he first side of the block
is the surface of the block that is generally visible to the user and generally
comes into contact with laundry during drying laundry.” Spec. 4:4-6.
Claim 10 reads as follows:
10. A multiple use fabric conditioning block comprising:

(a) a first side comprising at least one indentation;

(b) a fabric conditioning composition comprising a
fabric conditioning component; and a carrier component; and

wherein the block is operably connectable to the inside
surface of a dryer; and

2 Claims 1-9 and 11-19 were also finally rejected but were cancelled in an
Examiner’s Amendment dated September 22, 2009.
Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200

3
wherein said indentation is imprinted, impressed, or
stamped on the first side.

Examiner’s Amendment dated September 22, 2009.
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us on appeal:3
(1) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Griese.4
(2) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Griese and Block.5
Claim 10 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-23 and 28
of copending Application 11/059,078. The Appellants do not contest this
ground of rejection. Therefore, the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection will be summarily affirmed.
B. DISCUSSION
In the Final Office Action,6 the Examiner relies on Griese Figures 15
and 28 to show a fabric conditioning block having at least one indentation as
claimed. In particular, the Examiner notes that Griese Figure 15 depicts a
conditioning block having indentations formed by protrusions 426.
Similarly, the Examiner notes that Griese Figure 28 depicts a conditioning
block having an indentation formed by a screw 722. Final 5.
In the Appeal Brief,7 the Appellants argue that the indentation
illustrated in Griese Figure 28 is not on a “first side” of the conditioning

3 The provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections based on
Application 11/059,061 and Application 11/059,100 have been withdrawn
by the Examiner. Examiner’s Answer dated May 27, 2009 (“Ans.”), at 2-3.
4 US 6,910,640 B2 to Griese et al., issued June 28, 2005.
5 US 2,423,435 to Block, issued July 8, 1947.
6 Final Office Action dated January 7, 2008 (“Final”).
Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200

4
block as recited in claim 10 and defined in the Specification because the
screw 722 (and the indentation formed by the screw) would not come into
contact with laundry during drying.8 App. Br. 3; Spec. 4:4-6.
In response to the Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner appears to
have abandoned his reliance on the embodiments illustrated in Griese
Figures 15 and 28. Instead, the Examiner relies on Griese Figure 2 to show
an indentation on the “first side” of a conditioning block as claimed. Griese
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Griese Figure 2 depicts a conditioning block 31
and a product carrier 21.

The Examiner contends that hole plugs 15 extend through product 31
into carrier 21 which “implies the presence of a hole through product 31.”
Ans. 4. The Examiner contends that “[a] hole is the epitome of an
indentation” and “[i]ndentations are therefore present on both sides of the
composition.” Ans. 4.

7 Appeal Brief dated April 13, 2009 (“App. Br.”).
8 Presumably, the Appellants are of the opinion that the embodiment
illustrated in Griese Figure 15 suffers from the same deficiency.
Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200

5
However, the Appellants argue that “a hole, that completely traverses
the entire block, is not an ‘indentation’ as the term should be construed.”
Reply Br. 2.9
The Appellants’ position is supported by the record. See Spec. 4:2-4,
5:19-24. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection based on Griese will be reversed.
As for the combination of Griese and Block, the Examiner merely
relies on Block to show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to stamp indicia, such as letters, onto the conditioning block
of Griese. The Examiner does not explain why the teachings of Block
would have suggested stamping the indicia on the “first side” of Griese’s
conditioning block as recited in claim 10. See Ans. 5. Therefore, the
§ 103(a) rejection based on the combination of Griese and Block will also be
reversed.
C. DECISION
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Griese is reversed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Griese and Block is reversed.
The provisional rejection of claim 10 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-23 and 28
of copending Application 11/059,078 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).
AFFIRMED
cam

9 Reply Brief dated June 29, 2009.
Appeal 2010-007932
Application 11/059,200

6

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL LEGAL DEPT. – IP
SYCAMORE BLDG. – 4TH FLOOR
299 EAST SIXTH STREET
CINCINNATI OH 45202