Fameccanica.Data S.p.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2022

2022000565 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022)

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. 15/077,325 03/22/2016 Domenico POLIDORI 30496-0031 8482 29052 7590 03/04/2022 EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E. SUITE 2300 ATLANTA, GA 30309 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2022 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): patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DOMENICO POLIDORI, DIEGO GUALTIERI, and GABRIELE SABLONE1 ____________ Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 11, and 12. A hearing was held on February 24, 2022.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of manufacturing absorbent sanitary products, such as “training pants” and diapers for 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fameccanica.Data S.p.A. Appeal Br. 2. 2 A transcript of the hearing will be entered into the record when available. Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 2 incontinent adults. E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 3-4; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 12 (Appendix 1 - Claims on Appeal) of the Appeal Brief (key disputed limitation emphasized): 1. A method for manufacturing absorbent sanitary products, comprising the steps of: forming a first and a second continuous elastic band, which are movable parallel to each other in a machine direction; fixing a plurality of absorbent panels between said first and second continuous elastic bands, arranged in a direction transverse to the machine direction and spaced apart in said machine direction; wherein each of said continuous elastic bands is formed by a method comprising the steps of: continuously feeding a plurality of tensioned elastic threads in said machine direction, continuously feeding a pair of non-elastic webs arranged on opposite sides of said plurality of elastic threads, welding said pair of non-elastic webs to each other by a welding pattern comprising anchoring welds and guiding welds, wherein the anchoring welds comprise pairs of welds arranged on opposite sides of a respective elastic thread and spaced apart in the transverse direction by a distance greater than the diameter of the tensioned elastic thread but less than the diameter of the non-tensioned elastic thread, and wherein the guiding welds comprise pairs of welds arranged on opposite sides of a respective elastic thread and spaced apart in the transverse direction by a distance equal to or greater than the diameter of the nontensioned elastic thread. Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 3 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. Claims 1, 3, and 11 over Kobayashi (US 2012/0095429 A1, published Apr. 19, 2012) and Kaneda (US 2009/0326504 A1, published Dec. 31, 2009). 2. Claims 2 and 12 over Kobayashi and Kaneda, “further optionally in view of” Gilgenbach (US 8,940,116 B2, issued Jan. 27, 2015), “and further taken with” Een (WO 2009/067055 A1, published May 28, 2009), Hohm (US 2016/0058624 A1, published Mar. 3, 2016), and Buell (US 4,081,301, issued Mar. 28, 1978). ANALYSIS The Appellant presents arguments as to claim 1. We address those arguments below, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with claim 1. After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action dated August 12, 2020, and in the Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner finds that Kobayashi teaches each element of claim 1 except that Kobayashi uses adhesive regions rather than the recited anchor welds. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Kaneda teaches that anchor welds within the scope of claim 1 could be substituted for adhesive to serve the same function and additionally “allow for a softer feel as well as air permeability” relative to adhesive. Id. at 6-7 (citing Kaneda ¶¶ 190-194 & Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 4 Fig. 18). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use Kaneda’s anchor welds in place of Kobayashi’s adhesive regions. Id. The Appellant first argues that “Kaneda fails to teach or suggest that its anchoring welds are spaced apart by a distance which is greater than the diameter of the tensioned elastic thread but less than the diameter of the non- tensioned elastic thread, as required by Applicant’s claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6. That argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, we find that Kaneda’s Figure 18(b) depicts elastic members EL (i.e., threads) in a tensioned state because Kaneda ¶ 192 describes Figure 18 as showing a method in which “the sheets ST, ST are welded at predetermined intervals with the elongated resilient and elastic members EL in a stretched state” (emphasis added). The Appellant does not meaningfully contend otherwise. Given our determination that Figure 18(b) depicts threads EL in a stretched or tensioned state, it follows that the figure reasonably suggests that a distance between the welds M is “less than the diameter of the non- tensioned elastic thread,” as required by claim 1, because Kaneda teaches that in a non-tensioned state, “the elongated resilient and elastic members EL are increased in a cross-section outer diameter.” Kaneda ¶ 194. That disclosure reasonably suggests that, when threads EL in Figure 18(b) are in a non-tensioned state, threads EL would expand such that their diameter is greater than the distance between the welds M (i.e., the distance between the welds is less than the diameter of the non-tensioned elastic thread). See id. Fig. 18(b). We turn now to whether Figure 18(b) and accompanying text (e.g., ¶¶ 190-194) teach or suggest that the distance between the welds is “greater Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 5 than the diameter of the tensioned elastic thread,” as required by claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that they do. The Appellant’s position appears to be simply that the visual impression given by Figure 18(b) is that the distance between the welds is “about the same width as the elastic [thread].” E.g., Reply Br. 3. Although we do not take issue with the Appellant’s view of what Figure 18 appears to depict, we determine that Figure 18 is not dispositive of the issue. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discussing reliance on figures as depicting precise proportions or dimensions). The Examiner relies on Kaneda ¶¶ 190-194 in addition to Figure 18, see, e.g., Ans. 6, and the Appellant does not meaningfully address those paragraphs. Those paragraphs disclose that Figure 19(b) of Kaneda depicts an embodiment in which the welds M overlap the elastic members EL, and they strongly suggest an alternative embodiment (i.e., Figure 18(b)) in which the welds do not overlap the elastic members EL, i.e., are spaced apart at a distance “greater than the diameter of the tensioned elastic thread,” as recited by claim 1. Compare Kaneda ¶ 192 & Fig. 18(b), with Kaneda ¶ 193 & Fig. 19(b). Because Kaneda states that welds overlap elastic members EL in Figure 19(b) (“[T]he elongated resilient and elastic members EL and the sheets ST, ST are welded together”, Kaneda ¶ 193 (emphasis added)), but includes no such statement as to Figure 18(b) (stating that the sheets ST, ST-not the elastic member EL-are welded together, see Kaneda ¶ 192), a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would infer that no such overlap is present in Figure 18(b), and that the welds are spaced at a distance that is at least minimally greater than the diameter of the tensioned thread. Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 6 On this record, the Appellant’s argument that concerns what Kaneda Figure 18(b) appears to depict without persuasively addressing the accompanying text (¶¶ 190-194) fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s reasoning. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). The Appellant also argues that Kobayashi’s adhesive regions are spaced apart in the longitudinal direction, whereas the claims require anchoring welds spaced apart in the transverse direction. See Appeal Br. 7. That argument is not persuasive because it attacks Kobayashi individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). If Kobayashi’s adhesive regions were replaced by anchor welds as taught by Kaneda, those welds would straddle the elastic threads as they do in Kaneda, see Kaneda Figure 18, and would thus be spaced apart in the transverse direction. The Appellant also argues that “[i]t would not have been obvious to combine Kobayashi and Kaneda.” Appeal Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded of reversible error on the basis of that argument. The Examiner finds that Kaneda teaches or suggests the substitution of anchor welds for adhesive regions. Ans. 5-7. The record supports that finding. See Kaneda ¶¶ 191-194 (describing anchor welds as an alternative to adhesive). The Examiner also finds that the use of welds rather than adhesive regions would desirably improve air permeability. Ans. 7. The Appellant does not meaningfully contend otherwise, and the record is Appeal 2022-000565 Application 15/077,325 7 consistent with that determination. See Kaneda ¶ 191. Thus, the Examiner has provided adequate reason for making the proposed combination. We have carefully considered the Appellant’s arguments, and we are not persuaded that the Appellant has identified reversible error in the rejection. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 11 103 Kobayashi, Kaneda 1, 3, 11 2, 12 103 Kobayashi, Kaneda, Gilgenbach, Een, Hohm, Buell 2, 12 Overall Outcome 1-3, 11, 12 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