SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2021

2021004828 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
15/741,368 01/02/2018 Lisa PALMQVIST 1018798-000903 7865
105718 7590 11/19/2021
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
NGO, MEAGAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2021 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LISA PALMQVIST and ANNA KNÖS
____________

Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. Appellant’s representative presented oral
argument on November 8, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. i.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1–14 and 16–18 are directed to a method of applying a skin
beneficial agent to an absorbent article, and claims 15, 19, and 20 are
directed to an absorbent article. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Appeal
Br. (Claims App.). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of applying a skin beneficial agent to an
absorbent article comprising a topsheet layer having a body
facing surface and a garment facing surface, the article having a
longitudinal front portion, a longitudinal back portion and a
crotch portion located between the front and the back portion,
comprising:
printing with an in-line synchronized print technique, a
water based ink composition comprising a binder and the skin
beneficial agent that is microencapsulated on the article, each
layer of the absorbent article having a garment facing surface
and a body facing surface, and the ink being applied to any of
said surfaces, the skin beneficial agent being at least a partly
hydrophobic or lipophilic substance or additive, and the skin
beneficial agent being microencapsulated in a microcapsule
material being water-insoluble at 20°C.
Id.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 8, and 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Krzysik (US 6,756,520 B1, issued June 29, 2004), Arizti
(US 2015/0282997 A1, published Oct. 8, 2015), and Hancock (US
2016/0213528 A1, published July 28, 2016). Final Act. 2.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Krzysik, Arizti, Hancock, and Ehrnsperger (US
2015/0080826 A1, published Mar. 19, 2015). Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

3
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Krzysik, Arizti, Hancock, and Eilender (US 4,959,059, issued Sept. 25,
1990). Final Act. 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock, as evidenced by the Polydimethylsiloxane
Material Safety Data Sheet. Final Act. 10.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 8, and 11–20 over Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock
Claims 1–5, 8, and 11–14
The Examiner finds that Krzysik discloses a method of applying a
skin beneficial agent to an absorbent article comprising most limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. More particularly, the Examiner finds that Krzysik
discloses a skin beneficial agent (dimethicone) that is microencapsulated on
the absorbent article, but finds that Krzysik does not disclose that the skin
beneficial agent is microencapsulated in a microcapsule material that is
water-insoluble at 20°C, as claimed. Id. at 3 (citing Krzysik, col. 25, l. 58–
col. 26, l. 8). The Examiner also finds that Krzysik discloses an in-line print
technique, but does not disclose that the technique is a synchronized print
technique, as claimed. Id. (citing Krzysik, col. 30, ll. 10–21).
The Examiner finds that Arizti discloses an absorbent article
comprising a topsheet with discrete zones that comprise a chemical
treatment. Final Act. 3 (citing Arizti ¶ 158, Fig. 22). The Examiner finds
that Arizti teaches chemical treatments that comprise printing a beneficial
skin agent (lotion) on the substrate, and thus, finds that Arizti suggests a
synchronized print technique. Id. (citing Arizti ¶ 76). The Examiner
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

4
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Krzysik’s in-line print technique to be synchronized, as suggested
by Arizti, to “create discrete zones where it would be desirable to apply a
skin beneficial agent.” Id.
The Examiner further relies on Hancock as teaching a
microencapsulated beneficial skin agent for use in an absorbent article,
wherein the microcapsule material is water-insoluble at 20°C (e.g., wax).
Final Act. 3 (citing Hancock ¶¶ 28, 94). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Krzysik’s
microencapsulated skin beneficial agent to be microencapsulated in
Hancock’s microcapsule material. Id. The Examiner reasons that this
modification “may improve the transfer of the agent to the skin of the
wearer.” Id. (citing Hancock ¶ 28).
Appellant contests the rejection for several reasons. Appellant first
asserts that Hancock does not teach that the encapsulating material is water-
insoluble at 20°C. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant contends that paragraph 28 of
Hancock “refers to a solidifying agent as wax for a diaper, [and] relates to
the embodiment of Figure 1.” Id. (bold face omitted). Appellant also
contends that paragraph 28 “states that the solidifying agent can be a thin
layer of wax or a wax-like substance,” but “[t]here is no discussion in
paragraph [28] that the solidifying agent is used to encapsulate the
hydrophobic composition.” Id. (bold face omitted).
Appellant acknowledges that paragraph 94 of Hancock refers to
encapsulating the topical composition with a solidifying agent. Appeal Br.
4. Appellant asserts, however, that there is no discussion of using wax for
encapsulation, “[a]nd, more importantly, in the discussion of encapsulating,
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

5
there is no reference to a wax or wax-like substance.” Id. (bold face
omitted). Appellant adds that “there is no teaching in Hancock that wax
would be suitable for encapsulation or microencapsulation.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Hancock teaches that wax or a wax-like
substance is used as the solidifying agent, and that the solidifying agent
encapsulates the topical composition. Ans. 3 (citing Hancock ¶¶ 28, 94).
The Examiner determines that this disclosure means the topical composition
can be encapsulated in wax or a wax-like substance. Id.
Appellant’s first argument is unpersuasive. Hancock discloses that
the topical layer can include dimethicone. See Hancock ¶ 46. Appellant’s
Specification discloses that the skin beneficial agent may be dimethicone.
See Spec. 4, ll. 9–11.2 Paragraph 28 of Hancock discloses that the “topical
layer,” also referred to as a “hydrophobic composition,” can include a
topical composition and a solidifying agent, which can be wax or a wax-like
substance. Paragraph 28 does not explicitly describe that the solidifying
agent encapsulates the topical composition. However, Hancock broadly
describes that “there are many references to a topical composition. Any such
reference could also include the topical composition . . . encapsulated by a
solidifying agent.” See Hancock ¶ 108 (emphasis added). Consistent with
this broad description, the hydrophobic composition used in the embodiment
of Figure 1 of Hancock could be encapsulated by a solidifying agent.
Indeed, paragraph 94 of Hancock discloses exemplary embodiments wherein
the solidifying agent encapsulates the topical composition. Paragraph 94

2 Herein, we refer to the Substitute Specification filed on January 2, 2018 as
the “Specification” or “Spec.”
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

6
does not explicitly describe the composition of the solidifying agent used to
encapsulate the topical composition.
Hancock broadly discloses that the topical layer can include
solidifying agents, such as multiple types of waxes, butters, and zinc oxide.
See Hancock ¶ 49. Hancock does not appear to disclose that any of these
substances would be unsuitable for use as an encapsulating material for the
topical composition. Although neither paragraph 94 nor 108 of Hancock
explicitly describes the solidifying agent used to encapsulate the topical
composition as being, for example, a wax, an Examiner is not required to
“seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Rather, in an obviousness analysis, an Examiner can consider not only the
express disclosures of the references, but also the “inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. Under 35
U.S.C. § 103, a prior art reference “must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” In re Burckel, 592
F.2d 1175, 1179 (C.C.P.A. 1979). Here, in light of Hancock’s broad
disclosures that waxes and wax-like substances can be used as a solidifying
agent in the topical layer, and solidifying agents can be used to encapsulate
topical compositions, we are unpersuaded that Hancock fails to either
implicitly disclose this use, or fairly suggest it.
Second, Appellant contends that there is no reason to combine
Hancock and Krzysik. Appeal Br. 5. Regarding the Examiner’s stated
rationale for this combination, Appellant asserts, “Hancock does not indicate
that encapsulating the topical composition is done for the purpose of
improving the transfer of the agent to the wearer’s skin.” Id. Appellant also
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

7
asserts, “Krzysik teaches a composition that primarily includes a hydrophilic
solvent and a polyethylene glycol, along with a microencapsulated agent,
such as dimethicone. Krzysik teaches that ‘. . . the high molecular weight
polyethylene glycols provide a tackiness to the hydrophilic lotion
composition that improves transfer to the skin of the wearer.’” Id. (citing
Krzysik, col. 5, ll. 1–25. Thus, Appellant contends, “Krzysik already
provides agents to ensure transfer to the skin. Moreover, the
microencapsulated agent of Krzysik is already an emollient/skin protectant.”
Id. (citing Krzysik, col. 6, l. 60–col. 7, l. 10). Appellant contends that a
skilled artisan would have no reason to replace Krzysik’s emollient/skin
protectant with Hancock’s composition, particularly when Krzysik’s
composition already includes compositions specifically designed to ensure
transfer to the skin. Id. at 5–6. Appellant also contends that the Examiner
does not explain how using wax as taught by Hancock would further
improve transfer of the composition to the skin. Id. at 6.
In response, the Examiner submits that Hancock teaches that the
solidifying agent may improve transfer to the skin of the wearer, and thus,
encapsulating Krzysik’s skin beneficial agent in the solidifying agent of
Hancock would improve transfer of the skin beneficial agent to the skin of
the wearer. Ans. 4. The Examiner states, “even if Krzysik’s inclusion of a
hydrophilic solvent and a polyethylene glycol ensures transfer of the skin
beneficial agent to the skin, including the solidifying agent of Hancock can
further improve transfer and improving transfer of the skin beneficial agent
to the skin would still be desirable and advantageous.” Id. (emphasis
added).
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

8
Appellant’s second argument is also unpersuasive. As explained by
the Examiner, the proposed modification does not replace the emollient/skin
protectant of Krzysik with Hancock’s composition. Ans. 5. Rather, the
Examiner finds that Krzysik discloses compositions that “include the
emollient and skin protectant, dimethicone,” and that the dimethicone can be
in microencapsulated form; however, the Examiner concedes that Krzysik
does not disclose that the microencapsulation material used with
dimethicone has the claimed water-insolubility property. See Final Act. 3;
Krzysik, col. 25, ll. 58–59, 65–67. The proposed combination therefore
utilizes Hancock’s encapsulation material with Krzysik’s dimethicone, but
does not replace the dimethicone with Hancock’s composition. Final Act. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant that there is no reason to combine
Hancock and Krzysik. Appeal Br. 5. As for Appellant’s contention that
“Hancock does not indicate that encapsulating the topical composition is
done for the purpose of improving the transfer of the agent to the wearer’s
skin,” Hancock discloses that the solidifying agent provides this skin transfer
improvement. Id.; see Hancock ¶ 28. In other words, this skin transfer
effect is a property of the solidifying agent. Accordingly, it is not apparent
why using the solidifying agent of Hancock would not provide improved
skin transfer when it is used to encapsulate Krzysik’s dimethicone.
Furthermore, although Krzysik discloses that “the high molecular weight
polyethylene glycols provide a tackiness to the hydrophilic lotion
composition that improves transfer to the skin of the wearer,” we are
unpersuaded that this tackiness would prevent the microencapsulated
dimethicone including Hancock’s solidifying agent from improving skin
transfer. Rather, we determine that the Examiner has provided an adequate
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

9
reason with rational underpinnings to use Hancock’s solidifying agent as a
microencapsulation material in the combination.
Third, Appellant contends that Arizti fails to specifically teach that a
lotion or skin care agent may be used in printing, but only mentions printing
in relation to a dye. Appeal Br. 7.
We disagree. Arizti discloses that:
The term “chemical treatment”, as used herein, means at
least a portion or region of a single or multi-layer substrate that
has a compound, composition, or substance applied to at least a
portion thereof. Some examples are one or more skin care
compositions, surfactants, inks, dyes, pigments, hydrophilic
coatings, hydrophobic coatings, lotions, enzyme inhibitors,
vitamins, and/or active ingredients. The chemical treatment
may be sprayed on, printed on, slot coated, or otherwise applied
to the at least a portion or region of the substrate.
See Arizti ¶ 76 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Arizti discloses that the
chemical treatment may be a lotion and it may be printed, and thus,
contradicts Appellant’s contention.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2–5, 8, and 11–14, which depend ultimately from claim 1 and are not
argued separately, as being unpatentable over Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock.
Claim 15
Appellant repeats substantially the same arguments as those presented
for claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 15 as being unpatentable over Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock for the
same reasons as for claim 1.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and specifies that “the water based ink
composition is mixed at ambient temperature.” Appeal Br. (Claims App. 3).
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

10
The Examiner finds that Krzysik discloses this limitation. Final Act. 7
(citing Krzysik, col. 30, l. 56–col. 31, l. 16).
Appellant contends that the cited portion of Krzysik does not mention
ambient temperature, and that Krzysik discloses that the composition
solidifies when at ambient temperature, and thus, cannot be mixed at
ambient temperature. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Krzysik, col. 30, ll. 28–30).
Appellant contends that the disclosure cited by the Examiner makes clear
that the solution is mixed while melted. Id.
Appellant points out that the Examiner states:
while the composition of Krzysik might not be at ambient
temperature while mixing is occurring, the step of mixing
occurs at ambient temperature as Krzysik does not disclose that
the composition is being heated while mixing is occurring.
Thus, Krzysik discloses that the composition is mixed at
ambient temperature.
Id. Appellant submits that “[t]here is no reason to conclude that the
composition is mixed at ambient temperature simply because ‘Krzysik does
not disclose that the composition is being heated while mixing is
occurring.’” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds that “Krzysik makes
no mention of agitating the mixture while it is being heated or cooled. Thus,
Krzysik discloses that the water based ink composition is mixed at ambient
temperature.” Ans. 8 (citing Krzysik, col. 30, l. 62–col. 31, l. 1).
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. We construe claim 16 as
requiring the water based ink composition to be at ambient temperature
during the mixing. The passage in Krzysik cited by the Examiner does not
describe this. See Krzysik, col. 30, l. 56–col. 31, l. 16. In fact, the Examiner
appears to acknowledge this omission, stating “the composition of Krzysik
might not be at ambient temperature while mixing is occurring.” Final Act.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

11
7 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant that Krzysik’s lack of
disclosure that the composition is heated while mixing occurs does not
constitute persuasive evidence that the composition itself is at ambient
temperature during this mixing. As the Examiner has not established with
sufficient evidence that Krzysik discloses the recited limitation, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16 as being unpatentable over Krzysik, Arizti,
and Hancock.
Claims 17–19
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the water based ink
composition dries almost instantaneously after application.” Appeal Br.
(Claims App. 3). Claims 18 and 19 depend from claims 16 and 15,
respectively, and recite similar language as claim 17. Id. The Examiner
finds that Krzysik discloses the recited limitations. Final Act. 7–8 (citing
Krzysik, col. 30, ll. 22–30).
Krzysik discloses, “[d]esirably, resolidification of the composition
occurs almost instantaneously, without the need for external cooling devices
such as chill rolls.” Krzysik, col. 30, ll. 28–30 (emphasis added). Appellant
contends that “[t]o dry something requires a change in moisture content,”
whereas “resolidifying requires a phase change from liquid to solid. It does
not require a change in moisture content.” Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner
responds that Krzysik’s disclosure of almost simultaneous resolidification of
the composition “implies that the composition is at least partially dried. The
claims do not require that the composition is completely dried almost
instantaneously after application nor is ‘dried’ defined in the specification.”
Ans. 8.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

12
Appellant’s contention is persuasive. The fact that Krzysik’s
composition can resolidify almost simultaneous is not, by itself, sufficient
evidence that drying of the composition necessarily also occurs during this
time. Nor has the Examiner provided additional evidence to support this
finding. Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Krzysik discloses the recited limitation. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 17–19 as being unpatentable over Krzysik,
Arizti, and Hancock.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 and recites that “all of the skin
beneficial agent in the water based ink composition is encapsulated in the
microcapsule material.”3 The Examiner finds that Krzysik discloses this
limitation, i.e., “the skin beneficial agent in the water based composition is
microencapsulated dimethicone.” Final Act. 8 (citing Krzysik, col. 25, ll.
58–67).
Appellant acknowledges that the portion of Krzysik cited by the
Examiner discloses encapsulated dimethicone, but contends that PEG
(polyethylene glycol) and natural fats are also skin beneficial agents.
Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that the cited portion of
Krzysik does not teach that PEG and natural fats are encapsulated. Id.
The Examiner responds that the rejection identifies dimethicone as the
skin beneficial agent and Krzysik discloses microencapsulated dimethicone.
Ans. 9. The Examiner notes that Krzysik’s composition contains PEG,

3 Claim 20 is directed to “[t]he article according to claim 1.” Appeal Br.
(Claims App. 4). As claim 1 is directed to a method, it appears that claim 20
should instead depend from claim 15 or 19.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

13
natural fats, etc., that are not disclosed to be encapsulated, but submits that
the skin beneficial agent (i.e., dimethicone) is encapsulated, and thus,
Krzysik discloses that all of the skin beneficial agent is encapsulated. Id.
As noted above, Appellant states, “Krzysik teaches a composition that
primarily includes a hydrophilic solvent and a polyethylene glycol, along
with a microencapsulated agent, such as dimethicone.” Appeal Br. 5
(emphasis added). Regarding polyethylene glycol, Appellant’s Specification
discloses that polyglycols are suitable binders for the ink composition. See
Spec. 4, ll. 27–31. The Specification does not, however, disclose that
polyglycols are “skin beneficial agents” in the context of Appellant’s
invention. See, e.g., id. at 3, l. 6–4, ll. 1–18. Accordingly, we disagree that
Krzysik must disclose that PEG is encapsulated in order to meet claim 20, as
construed consistent with Appellant’s Specification. Additionally, Appellant
does not identify any disclosure in Krzysik that the composition must
include natural fats.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the applied combination fails to
meet the recited limitation. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 as
being unpatentable over Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock.

Claims 6 and 7 over Krzysik, Arizti, Hancock, and Ehrnsperger;
Claim 9 over Krzysik, Arizti, Hancock, and Eilender; and
Claim 10 over Krzysik, Arizti, and Hancock, as evidenced by
the Polydimethylsiloxane Material Safety Data Sheet
Appellant does not present separate argument against the rejections of
claims 6, 7, 9, and 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of these claims
for the same reasons as discussed for parent claim 1.
Appeal 2021-004828
Application 15/741,368

14
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–15 and 20, and
reverse the rejection of claims 16–19.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 11–20 103 Krzysik, Arizti,
Hancock
1–5, 8,
11–15, 20
16–19
6, 7 103 Krzysik, Arizti,
Hancock,
Ehrnsperger
6, 7
9 103 Krzysik, Arizti,
Hancock, Eilender
9
10 103 Krzysik, Arizti,
Hancock,
Polydimethylsiloxane
Material Safety Data
Sheet
10
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 20 16–19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART