SONCO DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2020005000 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
15/947,419 04/06/2018 JONATHAN EDWARD TROLLEN 29958/09168 7964
27530 7590 03/31/2021
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
HELVEY, PETER N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN EDWARD TROLLEN
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s December 31, 2019 Non-Final Action rejecting claims 1–17 and
21–24. See Non-Final Act. 1. Claims 18–20 have been withdrawn. Appeal
Br. 21–22 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sonoco Development, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a flat-bottomed gusseted bag made from a
multi-layer sheet. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A flat-bottomed bag, comprising:
a blank comprising a flexible sheet, the sheet comprising
a laminate of a first web and at least a second web, a face of the
first web being affixed to an opposing face of the second web
by an adhesive layer disposed between the first and second
webs, the blank defining:
a front panel;
a left side panel joined to a left side edge of the front
panel;
a right side panel joined to a right side edge of the front
panel;
either a single rear panel joined to one of the left or right
side panels, or a pair of partial rear panels respectively joined to
each of the left and right side panels;
a plurality of bottom panels respectively joined to lower
edges of the front, left side, right side, and rear panels; and
fold lines respectively formed at each juncture between
said panels;
the blank forming a bag with each joined pair of panels
disposed generally perpendicular to each other, a leftmost edge
of the blank being attached to a rightmost edge of the blank
along a longitudinal seam therebetween, the bottom panels
being attached together to form a bottom wall of the bag;
wherein the adhesive layer comprises at least one
adhesive region and a plurality of adhesive-free fold line
regions, wherein each adhesive-free fold line region:
extends along at least part of the length of a fold line,
between a bottom panel and the single respective front, left
side, right side, or rear panel joined therewith, without covering
a juncture between any of the following panels:
the front panel,
the left side panel,
the right side panel, and
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

3
the rear panel, and
extends at least partially above and below each fold line.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Huffer US 6,517,243 B2 Feb. 11, 2003
Jackson US 7,858,909 B2 Dec. 28, 2010
Bierschenk US 2009/0232424 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–5, 10–15, 22–24 103(a) Bierschenk, Jackson
6–9, 16, 17, 21 103(a) Bierschenk, Jackson,
Huffer
OPINION
Claims 1–5, 10–15, and 22–24:
Rejected as Unpatentable over Bierschenk and Jackson
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Bierschenk teaches a flat-bottomed bag
substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach the claimed plurality
of adhesive-free fold line regions that: (1) extend at least partially along,
above, and below a fold line between a bottom panel and the single
respective front, left side, right side, or rear panel jointed therewith, and (2)
do not cover a juncture between any of the front, left side, right side, and
rear panels. Non-Final Act. 2–3 (citing Bierschenk ¶ 56, Figs. 2c, 2d, 4a).
The Examiner therefore relies on Jackson for the missing limitation. Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that “Jackson teaches a multi-layer film wherein the
adhesive layer is in a partial-coverage pattern that includes continuous
adhesive surrounding discrete adhesive-free regions.” Id. (citing Jackson,
Figs. 15, 16).
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

4
The Examiner explains that “[b]ecause the Jackson adhesive voids are
located contiguously across the laminate structure in areas (see Figs. 15, 16),
when applied to the laminate structure of Bierschenck, the fold lines of
Bierschenk (252, 262 for example) as seen in Fig. 2c would necessarily
cross at least some of the adhesive voids.” Id. at 3–4. The Examiner further
states that, for the limitation requiring each adhesive-free fold line region to
not cover a juncture between any of the front, left side, right side, and rear
panels:
The combination set forth above details a multitude of
adhesive-free regions intermittently covering the entire blank,
however for the purposes of claim interpretation, only one of
the adhesive-free regions located overlapping each of the fold
lines between the bottom panel and the respective front, left
side, right side, and rear panels is considered to be the specific
‘adhesive-free fold line regions’ as set forth in the claims. . . .
The other adhesive free regions of the combination, i.e. those
that are not specifically on the fold line between the bottom and
respective front, left side, right side, and rear panels, can be
disregarded for the purposes of the claim interpretation.
Id. at 4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to construct the film taught by Bierschenk with the
continuous adhesive and adhesive voids between layers as taught by
Jackson, in order to reduce the amount of adhesive needed to adhere the
layers together.” Id. at 3; see Jackson, 11:8–9 (“It is preferred to have an
adhesive pattern [as opposed to complete adhesive coverage] to save cost
and weight.”).
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in opposition to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Bierschenk and
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

5
Jackson, but find them unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant first
argues that “Jackson does not actually teach an increased flexibility due to a
particular adhesive pattern.” Appeal Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive,
because the Examiner does not rely on increased flexibility as the reason one
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Jackson and Bierschenk.
Instead, the Examiner relies on the reduction in the amount of adhesive
needed to adhere the layers together, which, as Jackson teaches, saves both
cost and weight. Non-Final Act. 3; Jackson, 11:8–9.
Appellant next argues that Jackson does not teach that its adhesive-
free areas extend across a fold line between a bottom panel and its respective
upper panel in the blank depicted in Figure 3 of Jackson. Appeal Br. 9.
According to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner does not identify which panel of
Jackson is the bottom, front, left, right, or rear.” Id. at 10. Appellant
similarly argues that the Examiner does not show how Jackson’s adhesive
pattern “interplays” with the junctures between the front, left side, right side,
and rear panels of Jackson. Appeal Br. 10. These arguments are misplaced,
as the Examiner’s rejection is not based on applying Jackson’s patterned
adhesive to construct the laminate used to make Jackson’s bag, but rather is
based on applying it to create the laminate film to make Bierschenk’s bag.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.”).2

2 In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that it is unclear whether the
Examiner proposes applying “only the cross-hatched non-continuous
adhesive of Jackson (shown in Fig. 16) . . . to the entire Bierschenk laminate
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

6
Appellant next challenges the Examiner’s finding that Jackson’s
adhesive voids would extend across Bierschenk’s fold lines without covering
the junctures between Bierschenk’s front, left side, right side, and rear
panels. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant asserts that “[w]e have no blank
structure illustrated in Bierschenk,” and “[t]here is no evidence to suggest
that the combination of Jackson and Bierschenk would accomplish each of
these limitations and the Examiner fails to show how such would be
accomplished by the combination.” Id.
We disagree. As evidence, the Examiner relies on, e.g., Figure 2c of
Bierschenk, which depicts fold lines 252 and 262, and the cross-hatched
adhesive pattern depicted in Figures 15 and 16 of Jackson. The Examiner
contends that applying Jackson’s cross-hatched adhesive pattern to make the
laminate film used for Bierschenk’s bag would result in at least one of the
adhesive-free areas in Jackson extending across fold lines 252 and 262
without covering a juncture between any of the front, side, and rear faces of
Bierschenk’s bag. Non-Final Act. 3–4. These findings rely on the
Examiner’s interpretation of “adhesive-free fold line region” as applying to
some but not all of Jackson’s adhesive-free regions. Appellant does not
expressly dispute this interpretation; nor does Appellant expressly dispute

surface,” or whether “the entire adhesive pattern of Jackson (shown in Fig.
15) is applied to the entire Bierschenk laminate surface.” Reply Br. 2. We
think it is clear, however, that the Examiner proposes that only the cross-
hatched non-continuous adhesive pattern be applied to Bierschenk’s
laminate surface. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 3 (Jackson’s “adhesive voids are
located contiguously across the laminate structure in areas . . . when applied
to the laminate structure of Bierschenk” (emphasis added)); id. at 4 (“The
combination set forth above details a multitude of adhesive-free regions
intermittently covering the entire blank” (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

7
that at least some of Jackson’s adhesive-free regions would satisfy the above
limitations. Therefore, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error.
For the above reasons, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Bierschenk and Jackson.
Independent Claim 13
Independent claim 13 recites a blank for forming a flat-bottomed bag.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.). Claim 13 is similar to claim 1, so for
those limitation common to both claims—such as the requirement that the
adhesive-free fold line regions extend across and at least partially along a
fold line between a bottom panel and its respective upper panel—the
discussion above regarding claim 1 applies with equal force to claim 13.
Claim 13 differs from claim 1 primarily in that instead of prohibiting
the plurality of adhesive-free fold line regions from covering a juncture
between any of the front, left side, right side, and rear panels, it requires the
“at least one adhesive region” to be disposed on at least one of these
junctures. Id. For this limitation, the Examiner finds that
[t]he interconnected grid of adhesive shown in Figs. 15 and 16
of Jackson, when applied between the Bierschenk layers . . .,
necessarily results in at least some portion of the adhesive grid,
or adhesive region, crossing the claimed junctions between the
front, left side, right side, and rear panels.

Non-Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant responds that “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that the
combination of Jackson and Bierschenk would accomplish [this limitation]
and the Examiner fails to show how such would be accomplished by the
combination.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

8
Again, we disagree. The Examiner relies on the same evidence relied
upon in rejecting claim 1: primarily Figure 2c of Bierschenk and Figures 15
and 16 of Jackson. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner’s reasoning is that in
applying the cross-hatched adhesive pattern to construct the laminate used to
make Bierschenk’s bag, at least one adhesive line of the cross-hatch pattern
would necessarily be disposed on at least one juncture between any of the
front, left side, right side, and rear panels. Id. at 4. Appellant does not
directly address this reasoning or otherwise show it to be erroneous.
Therefore, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
13 as unpatentable over Bierschenk and Jackson.
Dependent Claims 2–5, 10–12, 14, 15, and 22–24
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
2–5, 10–12, 14, and 15 is “conclusory and generic, without reference to any
specific disclosure of Bierschenk or Jackson.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant
further contends that “the Examiner fails to address” claims 22, 23, and 24.
Id.
The Examiner carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of unpatentability “by adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it
perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The ultimate criterion is whether the appellant has had “a fair
opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.” Id. at 1365. For
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, an Examiner generally carries this
burden by “discussing the theory of the rejection, the prior art basis for the
rejection, and where each limitation of the rejected claims is shown in the
prior art reference.” In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed.
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

9
Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). Here, the Examiner does not set forth
where each of the additional limitations in the dependent claims is found in
either Bierschenk or Jackson. Instead, the Examiner makes unsupported
assertions that various limitations are taught, without identifying which
specific claim is being considered or where in the prior art the limitation is
taught. Without identifying the specific excerpt in Bierschenk of Jackson on
which the Examiner is relying to teach a specific limitation, Appellant is not
able to explain why that excerpt falls short of teaching the limitation in
question. For that reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2–5, 10–12, 14, 15, and 22–24 as unpatentable over Bierschenk and
Jackson.
Claims 6–9, 16, 17, and 21:
Rejected as Unpatentable over Bierschenk, Jackson, and Huffer
Claims 6–9, 16, 17, and 21 ultimately depend from either claim 1 or
claim 13, and additionally recite limitations directed to a closure feature.
Appeal Br. 18, 21–23. The Examiner relies on Huffer to teach the additional
limitations. Non-Final Act. 5–6. Appellant does not separately argue the
patentability of these claims, but instead relies on arguments made, and
found unpersuasive, in support of the patentability of the base claims. See
Appeal Br. 12 (“Huffer fails to remedy the deficiencies set forth above with
regard to Bierschenk and Jackson”). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 16, 17, and 21 as
unpatentable over Bierschenk, Jackson, and Huffer.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
Appeal 2020-005000
Application 15/947,419

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–15,
22–24
103(a) Bierschenk,
Jackson
1, 13 2–5, 10–12,
14, 15, 22–
24
6–9, 16, 17,
21
103(a) Bierschenk,
Jackson, Huffer
6–9, 16, 17,
21

Overall
Outcome
1, 6–9, 13,
16, 17, 21
2–5, 10–12,
14, 15, 22–
24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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