The Procter & Gamble CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 202014878156 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/878,156 10/08/2015 Raymond Scott HAMILTON 13574 2815 27752 7590 05/22/2020 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): centraldocket.im@pg.com mayer.jk@pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAYMOND SCOTT HAMILTON, LUKE ROBINSON MAGEE, BRET DARREN SEITZ, and GARY DEAN LAVON Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble Company. Appeal Br. 1. 2 As explained below, the appeal is dismissed with respect to claim 23. Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an absorbent article. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An absorbent article having a central chassis, the central chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, an absorbent core, and an insert length, the absorbent article comprising: a front waist region and a front waist edge; a back waist region and a back waist edge; a front belt comprising a front inner belt layer and a front outer belt layer, each of the front belt layers being disposed in the front waist region, but not disposed in the back waist region; a back belt comprising a back inner belt layer and a back outer belt layer, each of the back belt layers being disposed in the back waist region, but not disposed in the front waist region; a product rise; wherein the front and back belts are joined at seams to form a waist opening and leg openings; the front belt comprising a first film; the back belt comprising a second film; wherein a portion of one of the front and back belts is folded to form a waist edge; wherein at least one of the front and back belts is shaped; and wherein an insert length to product rise ratio from about 0.55 to about 0.64. Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Veith US 7,824,389 B2 Nov. 2, 2010 Matsuda US 2004/0243083 A1 Dec. 2, 2004 Haruki US 2007/0043331 A1 Feb. 22, 2007 Takino US 2012/0215191 A1 Aug. 23, 2012 REJECTIONS Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Veith and Haruki. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takino. OPINION Claim 23 The Examiner sets forth a new ground of rejection for claim 23 in the Answer. Ans. 3–6. Although that rejection relies on findings from the Final Action, it modifies the application of those findings to meet the claim limitations and is, nevertheless, a new ground of rejection. The Examiner explains that Appellant must reopen prosecution or maintain appeal to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the new ground. Ans. 9–10. Indeed, our rules clearly state: (b) Appellant’s response to new ground of rejection. If an examiner’s answer contains a rejection designated as a new ground of rejection, appellant must within two months from the date of the examiner’s answer exercise one of the following two Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 4 options to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the new ground of rejection: (1) Reopen prosecution. Request that prosecution be reopened before the primary examiner by filing a reply under § 1.111 . . . . (2) Maintain appeal. Request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief as set forth in § 41.41. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b). Appellant did not respond to the new ground in any way (Appellant filed no reply reopening prosecution and no reply brief). Accordingly, as required by our rules, we dismiss the appeal as to claim 23. Claims 1–20 Appellant argues claims 1–20 as a group. Appeal Br. 5–6. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 1 recites “an insert length to product rise ratio from about 0.55 to about 0.64,” which is the only limitation in dispute. Appellant contends that “no published art was found . . . having the claimed ratio,” and “Appellants disclose currently marketed product results . . . which also fall outside of the claimed ratios.” Appeal Br. 5. This is not persuasive of error, as it does not address the basis for the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds that this ratio is a result-effective variable, which Appellant does not dispute. Ans. 8.3 The basis for the Examiner’s rejection is that the recited ratio would be the result of routine optimization, which Appellant also does not dispute. Id. Accordingly, we are left with an undisputed rejection of claims 1–20. 3 As noted above, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief. Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 5 For at least the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claims 1–20. Claims 21 and 22 Claims 21 and 22 are each independent and require that “the first, second, and third articles have an insert length to rise ratio greater than 60%.” Appellant contends that Takino does not teach the recited ratio. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that “Appellant does not present arguments addressing the reasoning of the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.” Ans. 9. The Examiner is correct. As Appellant acknowledges, the Final Action does not rely on Takino teaching the specific ratio recited in the claims. Rather, the Examiner proposes modifying Takino, such that it has the recited ratio. Final Act. 11–12. Accordingly, we are, again, left with an undisputed rejection of claims 21 and 22. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with respect to claim 23. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Veith, Haruki 1–20 21, 22 103 Takino 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1–22 Appeal 2019-006388 Application 14/878,156 6 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation