The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2021000110 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
15/221,628 07/28/2016 Arman Ashraf 13969M 4752
27752 7590 10/04/2021
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
DILLON, DANIEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
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 ARMAN ASHRAF, DAVID MARK RASCH, and
DAVID WESLEY MONEBRAKE
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s October 31, 2019 decision to finally reject claims 1–3 and 11–13
(“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble Company
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a non-woven topsheet, with a
plurality of three dimensional features (Abstract). The claims recite that the
topsheet has four zones, each with a different pattern of three-dimensional
features (Appeal Br. 2). In one embodiment, each zone also has an average
opacity which is different than the average opacity of the other zones (id.).
In a second embodiment, each zone has a different average basis weight.
Independent claims 1 and 11, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A nonwoven topsheet comprising:
a first surface defining a plane of the first surface;
the first surface comprising a first zone having a pattern of
three-dimensional features extending outwardly from the plane
of the of the first surface, a second zone having a pattern of three-
dimensional features extending outwardly from the plane of the
first surface, a third zone having a pattern of three-dimensional
features extending outwardly from the plane of the first surface,
and a fourth zone having a pattern of three-dimensional features
extending outwardly from the plane of the first surface; wherein
the first zone pattern, second zone pattern, third zone pattern and
fourth zone pattern are different from each other;
wherein the nonwoven topsheet has an MD Fuzz Value of
less than 0.25 mg/cm2 when tested according to the Fuzz Level
Test herein;
wherein the nonwoven topsheet consists of a single layer
of continuous spunbond filaments;
wherein the first zone has an average opacity, and the
second zone has an average opacity, and the third zone has an
average opacity, and the fourth zone has an average opacity;
wherein the first zone average opacity, the second zone
average opacity, the third zone average opacity, and the fourth
zone average opacity are different from each other.
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

3
11. A nonwoven topsheet comprising:
an overall area and a first surface defining a plane of the
first surface;
within the overall area the first surface comprising a first
zone having a pattern of three-dimensional features extending
outwardly from the plane of the first surface, a second zone
having a pattern of three-dimensional features extending
outwardly from the plane of the first surface, a third zone
having a pattern of three-dimensional features extending
outwardly from the plane of the first surface, and a fourth zone
having a pattern of three-dimensional features extending
outwardly from the plane of the first surface; wherein the first
zone pattern, second zone pattern, third zone pattern and fourth
zone pattern are different from each other;
wherein the nonwoven top sheet has an MD Fuzz Value
of less than 0.25 mg/cm[2] when tested according to the Fuzz
Level Test herein;
wherein the nonwoven topsheet consists of a single layer
of continuous spunbond filaments;
wherein the first zone has an average basis weight, and
the second zone has an average basis weight, and the third zone
has an average basis weight, and the fourth zone has an average
basis weight;
wherein the first zone average basis weight, the second
zone average basis weight, the third zone average basis weight,
and the fourth zone average basis weight are different from
each other.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hammons US 2010/0036346 A1 February 11, 2010
Weisman et al. US 2016/0136009 A1 May 19, 2016
Chester et al. US 2014/0276517 A1 September 18, 2014

Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

4
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hammons in view of Weisman and Chester.
2. Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 2, 5–9, 13, 14, and 16–18 of
copending Application No. 15/221,624 in view of Hammons.
3. Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of copending Application No.
15/221,6262 in view of Hammons.
OPINION
Rejection 1. The Examiner finds that Hammons teaches a topsheet
for an absorbent article, which comprises first, second, third, and fourth
structurally modified zones which may each have a different structure
(corresponding to the claimed zones) (Final Act. 3, citing Hammons ¶¶ 1,
43, 49, 56, 62, 72). The Examiner further finds that Hammons does not
specifically describe that the different zones have different average
opacities, or different average basis weights (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner finds that Weisman teaches an absorbent article
comprising a liquid permeable topsheet, a liquid impermeable backsheet, an
absorbent core, and a distribution material comprising a wet-laid or wet-formed,
three-dimensional fibrous substrate (Final Act. 4, citing Weisman, ¶ 4). The
Examiner further finds that Weisman teaches that the three-dimensional fibrous
substrate may comprise at least three different regions, which may have
different values for common intensive properties, including basis weight and

2 issued as US 10,858,768 B2 on December 8, 2020.
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

5
opacity (Final Act. 4, citing Weisman, FIGS. 8, 9, ¶¶ 101, 105, 106). The
Examiner determines that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the filing of the invention to form the topsheets of
Hammonds which may be formed of non-woven webs for
absorbent articles and may have different structurally modified
zones formed from various macro-features which may impart
varying properties to the user, such that those properties include
opacity, as required by claim 1, and basis weight, as required by
claim 11, as taught by Weisman which also teaches the [use] of
non-woven webs with varying regions imparting different
properties to the non-woven webs.

(Final Act. 4).
The Examiner further finds Hammonds is silent with respect to the
topsheet material having a MD Fuzz value of less than 0.25 mg/cm2 when
tested to the Fuzz level test. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner relies on Chester
as teaching that high abrasion resistance is important when selecting
composite nonwoven fabrics, and that an acceptable range abrasion
resistance for nonwoven fabrics are between 0.02 and 0.06 mg/cm2 (Final
Act. 4, citing Chester ¶¶ 2, 70, 73). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to form the topsheets of Hammons with the foregoing
Fuzz level in order to have high abrasion resistance (id.).
Having reviewed the evidence and arguments set forth by Appellant in
the Appeal Brief,3 and the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer, we
affirm the rejection essentially for the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
We add the following for emphasis.

3 Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

6
Appellant argues that Weisman and Hammons are not properly
combined because the topsheet of Hammons is made of a nonwoven
material, while Weisman’s distribution sheet is made primarily of pulp (i.e.
paper) (Appeal Br. 5–6). This argument is not persuasive because, as
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 10), the rejection does not rely on
incorporating Weisman’s distribution sheet into the system of Hammons.
Instead, the rejection simply relies on Weisman’s teachings that a sheet can
have different properties in different regions, and that a person of skill in the
art would take those teachings and incorporate them into the topsheet of
Hammons (id.).
Appellant’s remaining arguments — that (1) the differences between
Weisman’s pulp-based distribution material and the spunbound topsheets of
Hammons means that a person of skill in the art would not look to Weisman
for the properties of average opacity or average basis weight, and (2) that
Weisman’s distribution material needs different properties than the topsheet
of Hammons as they perform different functions — are unavailing for the
same reasons. That is, the rejection does not rely on incorporating
Weisman’s distribution sheet into Hammons’s absorbent article. As
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 11), the rejection is based on a
determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to form the different structurally modified zones of Hammonds such that
each of the different zones has a different value for the various common
intensive properties, such as average opacity and basis weight in order to
provide the various benefits to each of the zones of Hammonds.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–3 and 11–13 over
Hammons in view of Weisman and Chester.
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

7
Rejections 2 and 3. With respect to Rejections 2 and 3, the
provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections,
Appellant does not offer substantive arguments in opposition. Accordingly,
we summarily affirm these rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11–13 103 Hammons,
Weisman, Chester
1–3, 11–13
1, 11 Provisional Non-
statutory double
patenting, Appln.
No. 15/221,626,
Hammons
1, 11
11 Provisional Non-
statutory double
patenting, Appln.
No. 15/221,626,
Hammons
1
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 11–13

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).
Appeal 2021-000110
Application 15/221,628

8
AFFIRMED