THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2020

2019005818 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2020)

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.
13/737,050 01/09/2013 Darrell H. Reneker UOA.493.USDIV 1055
26360 7590 10/13/2020
Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA
Huntington Tower, Suite 400
106 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308-1412
EXAMINER
CHOI, PETER Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARRELL H. RENEKER and DANIEL J. SMITH

Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–8, 23–29, 31–37, and 39–43. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as University
of Akron. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention generally relates to absorbent materials
comprising at least one hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component (HEFC),
comprising an elastomeric polymer and a hydrophilic polymer, and at least
one absorbent component. The absorbent component is in fluid
communication with the HEFC due to physical proximity to one another.
(Spec ¶ 2.) Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A liquid entrapping device comprising:
an absorbent component; and
a hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component, wherein the
hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component is a single
material that is both liquid absorbent and liquid wicking,
wherein the absorbent component and the hydrophilic
elastomeric fibrous component are in physical proximity
thereby resulting in fluid communication,
wherein the absorbent component is more absorbent than the
hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component but wherein the
hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component absorbs more
quickly than and has a smaller holding capacity than the
absorbent component therefore resulting in a net fluid flow
from the hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component to the
absorbent component,
wherein the absorbent component is mechanically entangled by
the hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component, and wherein
the liquid entrapping device is capable of absorbing from
400% to 6000% when placed in water and from 500% to
1250% when placed in synthetic urine (by weight);
wherein the absorbent component is selected from polyesters,
polyethers, polyester-polyethers, polymers having pendant
carboxylic acids or pendant hydroxyls, polysiloxanes,
polyacrylamides, kaolins, serpentines, smectites, glauconite,
chlorites, vermiculites, attapulgite, sepiolite, allophane and
imogolite, sodium polyacrylates, 2-propenamide-co-2-
propenoic acid, and any combination thereof; and
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

3
wherein the hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component is
selected from zein protein, polyester elastomers,
polydimethylsiloxane, hydrophilic poly(ether-co-ester)
elastomers, silicone-co-polyethyleneglycol elastomers,
polyacrylates, thermoplastic polyurethanes, poly(ether-co-
urethanes), and any combination thereof.

Appeal Br. 30–31, Claims Appendix (additional paragraphing added).
The following rejections are presented for our review2:
I. Claims 1, 4–8, 26–29, 31–37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Riddell (US 2002/0017354 A1,
published Feb. 14, 2002) in view of Doi (WO 00/47802, published Aug. 17,
2000, with US 6,403,216 cited as the English equivalent).
II. Claims 1, 4–8, 26–29, 31–37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Riddell in view of McDowall (US
6,362,389 B1, issued Mar. 26, 2002).3
III. Claims 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Riddell, Doi, and Ågren (US 4,685,907, issued Aug. 11,
1987).

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 2–24.)
3 The statement of the rejection appearing in the Final Office Action
includes the Rohrbaugh reference. This appears to be an inadvertent error on
the part of the Examiner because the discussion of the rejection does not
include Rohrbaugh. The Examiner excluded the Rohrbaugh reference when
reproducing the rejection in the Answer. (See Ans. 11–19.)
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

4
IV. Claims 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Riddell, McDowall, and Ågren.
V. Claims 27, 37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Riddell, Doi, and Lucast (US 6,198,016 B1, issued Mar. 6,
2001).
VI. Claims 27, 37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Riddell, McDowall, and Lucast.
VII. Claims 28, 35–37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Riddell, Doi, and Rohrbaugh
(US2002/0151634 A1, published Oct. 17, 2002).
VIII. Claims 28, 35–37, and 39–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Riddell, McDowall, and Rohrbaugh.
OPINION

Rejections I and II
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4–8, 26–29, 31–37, and 39–43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Riddell and Doi (Rejection I)
and Riddell and McDowall (Rejection II).
After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner
provide, we determine that Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We limit our discussion
to independent claim 1.4

4 Our analysis also applies to independent claims 29 and 37.
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

5
The dispositive issue for this rejection is:
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Riddell in
combination with either Doi or McDowall teaches or suggests a liquid
entrapping device comprising (i) at least one absorbent component and (ii) at
least one hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component that comprises an
elastomeric polymer and a hydrophilic polymer, wherein the absorbent
component and the hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component are in
physical proximity thereby resulting in fluid communication as required by
independent claims 1, 29, and 37?5
The Examiner finds Riddell teaches meltblown webs having absorbent
particles (clay or superabsorbent particles) substantially uniformly and
homogeneously dispersed therethrough wherein the particles are maintained
in the web by mechanical entanglement with the fibers. (Final Act. 2.) The
Examiner finds Riddell teaches that the fibers may comprise thermoplastic
elastomers such as polyurethanes and the absorbent component is selected
from at least polyacrylamides and polyacrylates. (Final Act. 2; Riddell ¶¶ 45,
48–50.) The Examiner finds
Riddell does not appear to specifically teach that the polyurethane
elastic fibers are hydrophilic, liquid absorbent and liquid wicking, and
that the absorbent component or superabsorbent component is more
absorbent than the fibrous component but the fibrous component
absorbs more quickly than and has a smaller holding capacity than the
absorbent component.
(Final Act. 3.)

5 We limit our discussion to the combination of Riddell together with either
Doi or McDowall. The Examiner cited additional references to address the
features of the dependent claims. The discussion of the dispositive issue
does not require consideration of the additionally cited references.
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

6

Addressing these distinctions, the Examiner cites Doi and McDowall. (Final
Act. 3–4, 11–12.) The Examiner finds Doi teaches a moisture
absorbing/releasing synthetic fiber and fabric, wherein representative
examples of the synthetic fibers include polyurethane synthetic fiber and
polyether synthetic fiber. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds McDowall
teaches thermoplastic elastomeric fibers including block elastomeric
copolymers and polyurethanes wherein the thermoplastic elastomeric fibers
may be made wettable by applying a hydrophilizing surface treatment to the
fibers or by adding a hydrophilic ingredient to the polymer prior to spinning.
(Final Act. 11).
Addressing the rejections over the combination of Riddell and Doi
(Rejection I), the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the absorbent nonwoven article of Riddell, wherein elastomeric polyurethane
fibers of Riddell are substituted by the moisture-absorbing/releasing
polyurethane fibers, such as taught by Doi, to obtain a conventional
absorbent nonwoven article comprising elastomeric polyurethane fibers
having high stretch recovery and high strength at break. (Final Act. 4.)
Addressing the rejections over the combination of Riddell and McDowall
(Rejection II), the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the absorbent nonwoven article of Riddell, wherein elastomeric polyurethane
fibers of Riddell are substituted by the hydrophilized polyurethane obtained
by polymerizing polyethylene oxide to the polyurethane, such as taught by
McDowall, to obtain a conventional absorbent nonwoven article comprising
elastomeric polyurethane fibers having the desired hydrophilicity and being
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

7
predictably suitable for similar applications, such as absorbent articles.
(Final Act. 12.)
Addressing the relationship between the absorbent/superabsorbent
component and fibrous component, the Examiner states:
Riddell teaches that the absorbent component may comprise clays or
superabsorbent particles (see for example Riddell, paragraphs 0048
and 0049). Additionally, Appellants’ specification teaches that super-
absorbents include organic polymers and porous clays (see Appellants'
specification, paragraph 0039). Therefore, both Riddell and
Appellants’ specification appear to teach substantially similar or
identical absorbent components.
(Final Act. 4.) 6
Appellant argues Riddell in combination with either Doi or
McDowall, fail to teach or suggest the liquid entrapping device of claim 1
that requires two different and separate components, specifically absorbent
materials comprising (i) at least one absorbent component and (ii) at least
one hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component (HEFC), comprising an
elastomeric polymer in a hydrophilic polymer, wherein the absorbent
component and the hydrophilic elastomeric fibrous component are in
physical proximity thereby resulting in fluid communication. (Appeal Br.
11–12, 20–21.) Appellant argues Riddell in combination with either Doi or
McDowall, fail to teach or suggest the two separate components with liquid
communication therebetween and having the wicking and net flow
properties required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 14–15, 23.)
Addressing Appellant’s argument regarding the fluid
communication/transportation between subcomponents, the Examiner states:

6 See also Final Act. 14.
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

8
Since the prior art combination establishes meltblown webs suitable
for use in diapers, hygiene products and body dressings, having
absorbent particles substantially uniformly and homogeneously
dispersed therethrough wherein the particles are maintained in the
web by mechanical entanglement with the fibers, the fibers and
particles necessarily suggest fluid communication/transportation
between components. It is unclear how the particles would be capable
of absorbing fluid once fluid is applied to the web, without the fibers
and particles which are entangled together being in fluid
communication with each other.
(Ans. 29, 36.)
The Examiner has focused on the absorbent particles, e.g., clay, that
are incorporated into the meltblown fibers. (Final Act. 4; Riddell ¶¶ 48, 49.)
Riddell discloses the absorbent particles are incorporated/penetrated into the
skin of the meltblown fibers resulting in the substantial elimination of
dusting. (Riddell ¶ 33.) As is apparent from the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s argument, the Examiner has not accounted for all the limitations
of the claimed invention. The claimed invention requires the combination of
(i) at least one absorbent component and (ii) at least one hydrophilic
elastomeric fibrous component (HEFC) that is both liquid absorbent and
liquid wicking. The claimed invention specifies the HEFC comprise both an
elastomeric polymer and a hydrophilic polymer. The claimed invention
specifies the absorbent component (i) and the HEFC (ii) are in physical
proximity thereby resulting in fluid communication between the two
subcomponents. The Examiner’s rejections failed to adequately explain how
the combination of Riddell and either Doi or McDowall account for the
properties of the claimed liquid entrapping device that comprises (i) HEFC
that is both liquid absorbent and liquid wicking and (ii) an absorbent
component that is more absorbent than the HEFC.
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

9
Consequently, the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how the
combination of Riddell and either Doi or McDowall renders obvious the
limitations of independent claims 1, 29, and 37.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of all the claims on appeal that rely on Riddell together with either
Doi or McDowall or in combination with additional references. The
additional references fail to cure the deficiency discussed above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8, 26–
29, 31–37,
39–43
103(a) Riddell, Doi
1, 4–8,
26–29,
31–37,
39–43
1, 4–8, 26–
29, 31–37,
39–43
103(a) Riddell, McDowall
1, 4–8,
26–29,
31–37,
39–43
23–25 103(a) Riddell, Doi, Ågren 23–25
23–25 103(a) Riddell, McDowall, Ågren 23–25
27, 37, 39–43 103(a) Riddell, Doi, Lucast 27, 37, 39–43
27, 37, 39–43 103(a) Riddell, McDowall, Lucast
27, 37,
39–43
28, 35–37,
39–43 103(a)
Riddell, Doi,
Rohrbaugh
28, 35–37,
39–43
28, 35–37,
39–43 103(a)
Riddell, McDowall,
Rohrbaugh
28, 35–37,
39–43
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–8,
23–29,
Appeal 2019-005818
Application 13/737,050

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–37,
39–43

REVERSED