Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020005917 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

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.
15/565,927 10/12/2017 Kristina Marie Price 64970581US14 8212
23556 7590 04/21/2021
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
Neenah, WI 54956
EXAMINER
KUMAR, RAKESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 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):
Kimberlyclark.docketing@kcc.com
Tisha.Sutherland@kcc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISTINA MARIE PRICE,
SARAH ELIZABETH KNIGHT, and
FINBARR CHARLES RONALD WILLIAMSON

Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927
Technology Center 3600
Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–15, 17, and 18.1 Final Act. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled, “Plurality of Integrally Interconnected Wipes
for Use in Dispenser.” Spec. 1. Independent claim 11 is representative of
the claims discussed in this Decision and is reproduced below:
11. A plurality of integrally interconnected wipes that
collectively define a web, the web having a right edge, a left
edge, a longitudinal direction extending parallel to the right and
left edges, a transverse direction perpendicular to the
longitudinal dimension, and a longitudinal centerline extending
in the longitudinal direction and positioned midway between the
right and left edges, the web defining a right side transversely
between the centerline and the right edge and defining a left side
transversely between the centerline and the left edge,
the web including a plurality of transverse intermittent cut
lines, the cut lines being spaced apart from each other in the
longitudinal direction to define individual wipes,
wherein each cut line defines a major tie and a minor tie,
the major tie and the minor tie being on opposite sides of the
longitudinal centerline, wherein the major tie and the minor tie
each have a width extending in the transverse direction, the width
of the major tie being greater than the width of the minor tie, and
wherein the major ties in longitudinally successive cut
lines are on alternating right and left sides of the longitudinal
centerline, such that a plurality of major ties are arranged on the
web in a zig-zag pattern in the longitudinal direction.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Muckenfuhs US 5,332,118 July 26, 1994
Marietta US 2017/0037579 A1 Feb. 9, 2017
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 11–15, 17, and 18 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Marietta in view of Muckenfuhs. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
1. Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting independent claim 11, the Examiner relies on Marietta for
disclosing the majority of the claimed limitations, referencing Marietta’s
Figures 4 and 11. See Final Act. 5–7. We reproduce Marietta’s Figure 4,
below:
Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

4

Figure 4 “is a perspective view schematically illustrating a roll of sheet of
absorbent material.” Marietta ¶ 45. The Examiner finds that this figure
shows interconnected wipes 19 that collectively define web 4, which
includes a plurality of transverse intermittent cut lines, as claimed. See Final
Act. 5.
We further reproduce Marietta’s Figure 11, below:
Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

5

Figure 11 illustrates a perforating pattern (top) with corresponding knife
portion (bottom). Marietta ¶ 47. The Examiner finds that this figure shows
a cut line defining a “major tie,” which is shown as the right-side of section
69, and a “minor tie,” which is shown as the left-side of section 69. See
Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains that the “major tie” has a greater width
than the “minor tie,” as called for in the claims. See id.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that “Marietta does not
disclose a plurality of major ties [that] are arranged on the web in a zig-zag
pattern in the longitudinal direction,” as required by claim 11. Id. To
address this shortcoming, the Examiner relies on Muckenfuhs. Id. In
particular, the Examiner cites to Muckenfuhs’s Figure 6 (id.), which we
reproduce, below:

Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

6

Figure 6 “is a plan view of three individual towel sheets . . . depicting their
overlapping relationship prior to folding.” Muckenfuhs, 5:16–18. The
Examiner finds that this figure shows “separation lines [40] configured to
separate each towel of the web alternate between right to left and left to right
. . . as in a zig-zag pattern.” Final Act. 6.
In combining Marietta with Muckenfuhs, the Examiner reasons that a
skilled artisan would have
modified the teachings of Marietta to include alternating
transverse intermittent cut line as taught by Muckenfuhs because
alternating side edges of the dispensing aperture can be used
against to pull and separate the instant sheet from the web thus
reducing wear and preventing a constant use of only one edge of
the dispensing aperture.
Final Act. 6–7 (emphasis added).

2. Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that a “skilled artisan would have had no motivation to
combine Marietta and Muckenfuhs or otherwise modify Muckenfuhs to
arrive at the presently claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 4 (citation omitted).
In support of this argument, Appellant points out that “Muckenfuhs is
Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

7
directed toward a series of z-folded stacked sheets which are at least
partially interweaved . . . . [t]hat is, the sheets of Muckenfuhs are entirely
unconnected from each other.” Id. at 3 (citing Muckenfuhs, 7:21–67, Fig.
6).

3. Examiner’s Answer
In addressing Appellant’s argument that “Muckenfuhs is directed
toward [] un-connected stacked sheets,” the Examiner disagrees, responding
that “[the] Muckenfuhs reference discloses a series of integrally
interconnected stack of wipes in Figure 6 wherein portion 80 connect the
adjacent wipes.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner submits an
annotated version of Muckenfuhs’s Figure 6 to depict the “integrally
interconnected” zig-zag portion 80 (see id.), a copy of which we reproduce,
below:

Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

8
As shown above in annotated Figure 6, according to the Examiner,
Muckenfuhs teaches, “alternating configuration of the tie portion 80 in a zig-
zag manner on integrally interconnected stack of wipes.” Id. (emphasis
added).

4. Analysis
The dispositive issue is whether a skilled artisan would have modified
Marietta’s roll of interconnected wipes based on Muckenfuhs’s teachings
“such that a plurality of major ties are arranged on the web in a zig-zag
pattern in the longitudinal direction,” as recited in claim 11.
We determine that a skilled artisan would not have modified Marietta
as proposed by the Examiner.
First, the Examiner committed reversible error in finding that
Muckenfuhs teaches integrally interconnected wipes. See, e.g., Ans. 9 (“In
this case, Muckenfuhs discloses a plurality of integrally interconnected
wipes.”) (emphasis added). Rather, and as pointed out correctly by
Appellant, “Muckenfuhs is directed toward stacks of discreet, interleaved
folded sheets and problems associated with such configurations.” Reply Br.
2 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Muckenfuhs, 3:49–50 (“The present invention
expands this operational window by utilizing discreet towel sheets.”)
(emphasis added), 7:21–25 (describing individual towel sheets 10 for use in
a “Z-folded, interleaved configuration”).
Second, “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e.,
as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed
invention.” W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
(Fed. Cir. 1983). We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have
Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

9
modified Marietta’s roll of interconnected wipes based on Muckenfuhs’s
teaching of folded, interleaved wipes. Muckenfuhs discloses “discreet towel
sheets” that are folded onto one another with an “overlapping region having
a nonuniform width” to provide for a “predictable, repeatable separation
process with towel sheets which are pre-moistened or otherwise have an
affinity (clinging tendency) toward one another.” Muckenfuhs, 3:49–59.
Indeed, Muckenfuhs’s invention focuses on improving dispensing of discreet
wipes—which may be pre-moistened—that cling to one another.
Marietta’s roll of paper, on the other hand, may be a roll of toilet
paper or kitchen towels. See, e.g., Marietta ¶¶ 60, 76. Marietta discloses
that its roll of paper sheets are integrally connected and are separated from
one another with a tear line. See id. ¶ 60 (“[T]ear lines 50, 51, 52 enable
tearing off and separation of individual sheets of paper 19.”).
Based on these teachings, we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan
would have modified Marietta’s roll of integrally interconnected paper
sheets based on Muckenfuhs’s teachings of interfolded wipes that cling to
one another for the purpose of “reducing wear and preventing constant use
of only one edge of [Marietta’s] dispensing aperture,” as reasoned by the
Examiner. Final Act. 6–7.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of independent
claim 11, and of its dependent claims 12–15, 17, and 18—which inherit the
same rejection infirmity—as unpatentable over Marietta and Muckenfuhs.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 11–15, 17, and 18.

Appeal 2020-005917
Application 15/565,927

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–15, 17,
18
103 Marietta, Muckenfuhs 11–15,
17, 18

REVERSED