Ex Parte Anzini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

14002845 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

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.
121981-00435 4658
EXAMINER
ATTEL, NINA KAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/002,845 11/19/2013 David Anzini
01/26/201851468 7590
McCarter & English LLP
ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
825 Eighth Avenue
31st Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10019
01/26/2018 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 DAVID ANZINI, ARTHUR BUCCI,
RUSTY KOENIGKRAMER, and VICTOR MATIAS1
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT C. MOORE, and ANTHONY KNIGHT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1—20. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Illinois Tool Works Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants disclose zipper 10 for a resealable package. Spec. Tflf 2, 11.
Zipper 10 has first and second profiles that include interlocking elements.
When the interlocking elements interlock, they form and completely bound
an internal zipper volume that confines a fragrance carrying element. Prior
to opening zipper 10 (separating first and second profiles 12, 14), fragrance
carrying oil 40 is confined substantially within the internal zipper volume so
it does not enter storage 114 of package 100 or escape externally. Id. 115.
Appellants disclose two embodiments of the zipper. One embodiment
includes two pairs of interlocking elements to confine the fragrance carrying
element 40. Fig. 2. The other embodiment uses just one pair of interlocking
elements to do so. Fig. 3. Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below.
1$
/' i /' \
X? '
14
Figure 2 illustrates the first embodiment in which first profile 12 has
two interlocking elements 20, 22 that interlock with interlocking elements
36, 38 on second profile 14 to form internal zipper volume 24 that contains
fragrance carrying oil 40 therein. Id. 13—15. Figure 3 illustrates a second
embodiment in which first profile 12 has a single interlocking element 20’
that interlocks with interlocking element 36’ on second profile 14 to form an
internal zipper volume (unnumbered) for fragrance carrying oil 40 that may
be applied to element 20’ or to the interior of element 36’. Id. 116.
10
*1 ^
*4 -vs i, V>
/ J O! "is s
FIG. 2 F f G 3
2
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.2
1. A zipper for a reclosable package including;
a first interlocking profile including a first interlocking
structure;
a second interlocking profile including a second
interlocking structure; wherein the first and second interlocking
structures interlock with each other and form an internal zipper
volume between and completely bounded by the first and
second interlocking structures; and
a fragrance carrying element within the internal zipper
volume, a scent from the fragrance carrying element being
confined within the internal zipper volume when the first and
second interlocking structures are interlocked and the fragrance
being free to escape from the internal zipper volume when the
first and second interlocking structures are free of interlocking
with each other.
Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6 and 11—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blythe (US 2008/0172842 Al, pub. July 24, 2008) or
Swain (US 5,351,369, iss. Oct. 4, 1994), Dayton (US 2008/0310772 Al,
pub. Dec. 18, 2008), and Thomas (US 2005/0220374 Al, pub. Oct. 6, 2005).
Claims 1—3, 7—13, and 17—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pawloski (US 2004/0234170 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2004),
Dayton, and Thomas.
2 Appellants assert in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter that claims 1
and 11 encompass the first embodiment illustrated in Figure 2 above. Br. 3—
4. We agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 11 encompass the second
embodiment illustrated in Figure 3 above, as well. See Ans. 3^4.
3
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—6 and 11—16
Rejected Over Blythe or Swain, Dayton, and Thomas
Appellants argue claims 1—6 and 11—16 as a group. Br. 6—7. We
select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2—6 and 11—16 standing or
falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Blythe and Swain each disclose a reclosable
bag and zipper with first and second interlocking structures that interlock to
form an internal zipper volume as recited in claim 1, but fail to teach that the
internal zipper volume or gasket carries a fragrance with a scent of the
fragrance carrying element confined within the internal zipper volume when
the first and second interlocking structures are interlocked. Final Act. 2—3.
The Examiner finds that Dayton teaches a reclosable bag with a zipper that
comprises interlocking structures and a gasket of a compressible, gap-filling
material that can be provided with an odor-reducing agent such as a scent or
fragrance. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Thomas teaches a reclosable
bag with a zipper that comprises interlocking profiles and an odor reducing
agent that is confined when the profiles are interlocked and free to escape
when the profiles are not interlocked. Id. at 3.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the
reclosable bag of Blythe or Swain by configuring the gaskets of their first
and second interlocking profiles as fragrance carrying elements as Dayton
teaches so a scent from the fragrance carrying element is confined in the
internal zipper volume when the interlocking structures are interlocked and a
scent is free to escape from the internal zipper volume when the interlocking
structures are not interlocked, as Thomas teaches. Id. at 4.
4
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 recites that the first and
second interlocking structures interlock with each other to “form an internal
zipper volume between and completely bounded by the first and second
interlocking structures.” Br. 6. Appellants argue that the space bounded by
gasket 756 in Blythe is completely within the profile illustrated in Figure 26
and “is therefore not ‘completely bounded by first and second interlocking
structures’ as claimed. Id. Appellants also argue that gasket 756 prevents
articles from entering the internal volume of that profile. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not address
the Examiner’s rejection set forth in the Final Office Action. The Examiner
finds that Blythe discloses a similar arrangement to the second embodiment
of Appellants’ claimed zipper, i.e., one that forms an internal zipper volume
between a single pair of interlocking elements. Final Act. 2—3, 9; Ans. 3^4.
The Examiner does not treat gasket 756 as an interlocking element as
Appellants appear to argue. Rather, the Examiner finds that Blythe teaches a
first interlocking element (c-shaped section 754) that interlocks with another
interlocking element (male profile 770) as illustrated in Figure 27 of Blythe.
Final Act. 2—3; Blythe 110—111 (cited in id.). We agree that the elements
754, 770 are first and second interlocking profiles, as claimed, and that they
form and completely bound an internal zipper volume when they interlock as
illustrated in Figure 27 of Blythe, which shows a space formed between and
completely bounded by these elements. Indeed, Appellants recognize that
Blyth discloses gasket 756 as being contained within this internal volume.
See Br. 6. Figure 27 shows that gasket 756 does not fill the internal zipper
volume, however. The Examiner proposes to configure the gaskets of the
interlocking profiles as fragrance carrying elements. See Final Act. 4.
5
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Appellants argue that Swain discloses a “moisture resistant fastener”
that forms a tight fit between interlocking structures and therefore is unlikely
to have an internal zipper volume completely bounded by the profiles. Br. 6.
Appellants also argue that Swain’s description of the interlocking structures
as providing “moisture resistance” suggests a tight fit between the profiles
rather than an internal zipper volume as claimed. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Swain discloses profiles with first
and second interlocking structures as ribs 18 and channels 20 in Figures 3
and 4. Final Act. 2—3, 9—10; Ans. 5. Figure 4 shows how interlocking ribs
18 and channels 20 form internal zipper volumes completely enclosed by
these interlocking structures. Swain teaches that gaskets 30 can occupy this
internal zipper volume. Swain, 3:27-4:10, Fig. 4 (gasket 30).
As with Blythe, the Examiner proposes to modify Swain to provide an
odor reducing agent or a fragrance or scent on the gasket of Swain within the
completely enclosed internal zipper volume of Swain based on teachings of
Dayton and Thomas that interlocking elements and other zipper features can
include such odors, fragrances, and scents. Final Act. 3^4.
We do not interpret claim 1 to require the internal zipper volume that
is formed between the first and second interlocking structures to be vacant.
Indeed, claim 1 also recites “a fragrance carrying element within the internal
zipper volume.” Swain teaches this claimed configuration. The Examiner
merely proposes to include a fragrance carrying element within the internal
zipper volume, e.g., on a portion of the interlocking elements or on gasket 30
that is located within and completely bounded by interlocking elements 18,
20 as shown in Figure 4 of Swain based on teachings of Dayton and Thomas
to place such scents or fragrances in such locations. Final Act. 3^4.
6
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Appellants argue that Dayton teaches interlocking structures 404 and
408 that do not bound an internal zipper volume and gaskets 410, 412, and
414 that form a volume but are not part of the interlocking structures. Br. 7.
Appellants also argue that Dayton describes an odor-reducing agent that can
be applied to any part of the bag in very broad terms but does not refer to the
locking system in Figure 4A as specifically including such agents, and that
Dayton’s use of adhesive is contrary to the claimed reclosable feature. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, the Examiner relies on Blythe and Swain to teach the first and second
interlocking structures that form and completely bound an internal zipper
volume as claimed and as discussed above. The Examiner relies on Dayton
to teach an odor reducing agent such as a fragrance or a scent on the zipper
frame or gasket of a reclosable bag. Final Act. 3. The Examiner proposes to
apply this teaching to the gasket and resealable interlocking zipper structures
of Blythe and Swain to confine the scent when the interlocking structures are
interlocked and to allow the scent to escape from the internal zipper volume
when the structures are not interlocked in order to provide the bag with a
means for managing, masking, neutralizing and/or reducing undesirable
odors and/or a means for producing an aromatic odor. Id. 4.
The Examiner’s determination is supported by a rational underpinning
because Dayton teaches that odor reducing agents may be used to mitigate
unpleasant odors associated with the contents of a bag and that the agents are
microencapsulated, embedded, or applied to an adhesive, a removable film,
a frame, a separate odor reducing member, or an attached member of a bag.
Dayton 1121. Dayton also teaches that frame 112 includes first and second
interlocking elements 404, 408. Dayton H 99, 119, 121, Fig. 4A.
7
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Appellants’ arguments regarding Dayton’s use of an adhesive is not
persuasive because Dayton also teaches to add fragrance carrying elements
to attached members of a reclosable bag or to interlocking elements 404 and
408 of a zipper frame. The Examiner proposes to include fragrance carrying
elements on the interlocking structures and attached gaskets of Blythe and
Swain based on these teachings of Dayton. See Dayton 1121.
Dayton also teaches that the fragrance may be released upon sealing
the interlocking structures of the frame, e.g., when pressure applied to seal
the frame breaks microencapsulation. Id. The Examiner proposes to modify
Blythe and Swain with these teachings to impregnate or coat the gaskets or
their interlocking structures to release a scent or aroma when interlocking
structures 404, 408 are interlocked by pressure as Dayton teaches. Id.', Final
Act. 4. As modified, Blythe/Swain would release a scent upon interlock of
their interlocking structures but would confine the scent or aroma within the
internal zipper volume until the profiles and their interlocking structures are
pulled apart, wherein the scent or aroma would be released, as claimed, and
as Dayton teaches and suggests to do. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 7—8, 9-10.
Appellants also argue that Thomas includes scented material between
fin portions 76 and 78, which are flange-like structures located away from
the interlocking structures, and that the scented material is used to maintain a
product within the zipper bag to which the zipper fin is attached. Br. 7.
This argument is not persuasive in view of the Examiner’s finding that
an odor reducing agent may be applied to other components of a package in
various forms and by various methods in confined spaces; the agents are
activated and then released when the confined space is opened/accessed as
discussed in relation to Dayton’s teachings. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 10-11.
8
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Thomas teaches to use aromatic odor agents in a reclosable package.
Agents may be included in the package environment as a coating, patch,
pouch, or tape, or by spraying, coating, laminating, stamping, extruding,
impregnating, or distributing the agents in a component of the package, e.g.,
as microcapsules. Thomas 30, 42—55, 94, 95. Therefore, like Dayton,
Thomas teaches to include fragrance agents in components of a resealable
bag, which would include the interlocking elements and gaskets of Blythe
and Swain. Thomas teaches that the agents release a scent or aroma when
the package is opened. Id. Tflf 106, 108. This teaching is consistent with the
Examiner’s application of Dayton’s teachings as discussed above.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—6 and 11—16.
Claims 1—3, 7—13, and 17—20
Rejected Over Pawloski, Dayton, and Thomas.
Appellants argue claims 1—3, 7—13, and 17—20 as a group. Br. 8. We
select claims 1 as representative, with claims 2, 3, 7—13, and 17—20 standing
or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Pawloski teaches a reclosable bag and zipper
with interlocking structures that interlock to form an internal zipper volume
bounded by those structures with attached strips 60a, 60b within the internal
zipper volume, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner again
relies on Dayton and Thomas to provide an odor reducing agent carried by
an attached member or another component of the zipper of a reclosable bag.
The Examiner determines that the odor reducing agent would be confined in
the internal zipper volume when the interlocking structures are interlocked
and would be free to escape when the structures are free of interlocking to
produce an aromatic odor and mask or reduce undesirable odors. Id. at 6—7.
9
Appeal 2017-002925
Application 14/002,845
Appellants argue that there is no reason to use Dayton or Thomas to
make the colored or stiffening strips 60a, 60b of Pawloski as fragrance
carrying elements, and that the rejection is based on hindsight. Br. 8. This
argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s reasoning is supported
by a rational underpinning based on the teachings of Dayton and Thomas.
As discussed above, Dayton teaches that odor reducing agents may be
embedded/microencapsulated in the frame (interlocking structures or profile)
of a reclosable bag, or they may be attached thereto as members to provide a
fragrance activated by pressure applied during sealing of the frame. Dayton
1121. Thomas teaches that such agents 50 can be applied to a component,
extruded with a component, sprayed, brushed, coated, or stamped on a
component, or impregnated/distributed into a component of a reclosable bag
to provide a scent when the bag is opened. Thomas 30, 42—55, 94, 95.
As modified, Pawloski’s reclosable bag would configure strips 60a,
60b as fragrance carrying elements as taught by Dayton and Thomas. Final
Act. 7. The scented strips would be completely bounded by first and second
interlocking structures 44a, 44b and 50a, 50b, and a scent would be emitted
when the elements are unlocked. See Pawloski, Figs. 2A, 2B. The strips
still may be colored or stiffen the base as Pawloski teaches. Pawloski 130.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 7—13, and 17—20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10