Ex Parte Blessing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

14535419 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2017)

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.
14/535,419 11/07/2014 Horst Blessing CM2988CCCCQ 7794
27752 7590 08/31/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST BLESSING, HANS-ADOLF JACKELS, and
MARKUS RIETZ
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our decision we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 7,
2014, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 1, 2015, the
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 2, 2016, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 9, 2016.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, The Proctor & Gamble Company, which
according to the Appeal Brief is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to process for producing absorbent core
structures. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for producing a sandwich structure comprising
a pattern of particulate material, the method comprising the steps
of:
advancing a carrier material to a carrier support structure,
the earner support structure comprising a carrier support area,
wherein the carrier material defines a support region and an
unsupported region, wherein the carrier material is supported by
the carrier support area in the support region;
forming an indentation in the unsupported region of the
carrier material;
metering superabsorbent particles into the indentation of
the carrier material to partly fill the indentation;
advancing a cover material adjacent to the carrier material;
and
bonding the cover material to the carrier material in the
support region of the carrier material, wherein the
superabsorbent particles are sandwiched between the carrier
material and the cover material.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 16, and 20—22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heath3 in view of
Haubach.4 Final Act. 2.
3 Heath et al., US 5,494,622, issued February 27, 1996 (“Heath”).
4 Klaus Karl Ferdinand Haubach, US 5,925,439, issued July 20, 1999
(“Haubach”).
2
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
B. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Heath and Haubach and further in view
of Potnis.5 Id. at 6.
C. Claims 9—15 and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Heath and Haubach and
further in view of Spiers.6 Id. at 7.
Appellant requests reversal of Rejections A-C. Appellant presents
argument for independent claims 1,16 (Rejection A), and 10 (Rejection C).
See generally Appeal Br. Appellant’s arguments in support of claims 1 and
16 do not differ substantively. Compare Appeal Br. 3—8 with 8—13. And,
Appellant does not present any additional argument in support of dependent
claims 2, 4—8, 20—22 (Rejection A), 3 (Rejection B), or 9, 11—15 and 17—19
(Rejection C) separate from what is argued for the independent claims. See
Appeal Br. 8, 13, 17, and 18. Therefore, we address claims 1 and 10 below
to resolve the issues on appeal.
OPINION
Rejection A — Obviousness (claims 1, 2, 4—8, 16, and 20—22)
The Examiner rejects claim 1, among others, as obvious over Heath
and Haubach. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Heath teaches all
aspects of instant claim 1 except that Heath fails to expressly disclose that
the metered particles filling the indentation are only partially filled. Id. at 4.
5 Prasad Shrikirshana Potnis, US 2004/0127131 Al, published July 1, 2004
(“Potnis”).
6 Spiers et al., US 6,837,281 B2, issued January 4, 2005 (“Spiers”).
3
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
The Examiner finds that Haubach teaches a similar method of preparing a
sandwiched structure and that “Haubach recognizes that the volume of the
indentation and the amount of particles in which it is filled will be
determined by the amount of liquid expected to occur in that area of the
article in which the indentation lies (column 2, lines 20—34).” Thus, the
Examiner reasons that the person skilled in the art would have been able to
adjust the amount of absorbent material within the indentations depending
on the amount of fluid to be absorbed. Id.
Appellant first argues that “the Examiner commits error by failing to
provide an explicit analysis as to how Heath is to be modified by the
disclosure of Haubach to arrive at the elements of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant contends that “the Examiner does not describe how the method of
Heath whereby a foraminous forming means 42 moves the carrier layer 26
through the pattern chamber 30 is to be modified by Haubach to adjust the
volume of the indentation and the amount of absorbent material it is filled
with.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner does not suggest modifying the method of Heath to include the
structure of Haubach, but rather utilizes Haubach to teach partially/partly
fdling the indentations formed in the carrier material. Final Act. 4; Ans. 11.
According to Heath, “[t]he forming means includes a pattern of openings 44
which are formed therethrough and are arranged to provide for a selected
pattern of the discrete pocket regions 24 (FIG. 8)” and the delivery system
can “be configured to deliver required amounts of high-absorbency material
28 through an appropriate supply conduit 52” or “the high absorbency
material can, for example, be operably metered and substantially gravity-fed
4
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
. . . into the pattern chamber 30.” Heath col. 3,11. 53—56, col. 4,11. 11—13
and 16—19 (emphasis added). Thus, Heath discloses forming indentations in
a carrier layer and metering or controlling the deposition of superabsorbent
particles onto the carrier layer. Haubach adds that “[t]he amount of hydrogel
particles 8 inserted into the individual impressions 7 is to be designed
advantageously such that the hydrogel particles, after the absorption of body
liquid, fill out the impressions 7 without the occurrence of gel-blocking.”
Haubach col. 2,11. 20—34. From this teaching, the Examiner reasons that the
skilled artisan would know to adjust the quantity of superabsorbent particles
deposited within the indentations based on the amount of fluid expected.
Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 11. Furthermore, Haubach suggests an initially
partially filled indention because of the expectation of swelling due to
absorption. Appellant’s arguments have not established reversible error in
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Next, Appellant urges that “modifying Heath with the apparatus of
Figure 3 from Haubach would be improper, because such a modification of
Heath with Haubach would impermissibly change the principle of operation
of the claimed invention of Heath.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that
Heath’s requirement of “moving the carrier layer through the pattern
chamber” would be affected. Id.
Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error by the Examiner.
Combinations of prior art that change the “basic principles under which the
[prior art] was designed to operate” may not support a conclusion of
obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959); see also In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (same). However, “[i]t is well-
established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
5
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (further citations
omitted)).
Appellant identifies the operation “of moving the carrier layer through
the pattern chamber” in Heath as the principle of operation that would be
undermined should the Examiner’s substitution occur. Appeal Br. 7. As
explained above, the Examiner does not modify Heath to include the
components of Haubach, but rather simply to teach partially filling the
indentations. Ans. 11. Heath, already teaches forming an indentation and
metering superabsorbent particles into the formed indentation. Heath col. 1,
11. 53—56, col. 2,11. 11—13 and 16—19. Haubach simply provides the
suggestion to partially fill the indentations. Id.', see also Haubach col. 2,11.
20—34. Therefore, the movement of the carrier through the pattern chamber
of Heath is not disrupted. Moreover, Appellant does not explain how
partially filling the indentations of Heath impermissibly changes the
principle of operation identified. Thus, the Examiner provides adequate
reasoning to combine the elements of Heath and Haubach in a manner to
arrive at claim 1.
Rejection C— Obviousness (claims 9—15 and 17—19)
The Examiner rejects claim 10, among others, as obvious over Heath,
Haubach, and Spiers. Final Act. 7. Independent claim 10 is similar to
independent claim 1 but, in relevant part, additionally requires
transferring superabsorbent particles to recesses in a transfer
device in a loading position;
6
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
rotating the recesses from the loading position to a discharging
position;
transferring the superabsorbent particles from the recesses into
the indentations of the carrier material at the discharging position
to partly fill the indentations;
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that Spiers discloses a
method of metering particles where particles are transferred into the recesses
of a rotating transferring device and then discharged from the recesses into
indentations of a carrier material. Final Act. 7. The Examiner reasons that
the modification of Heath to include a known and conventional method of
transferring particles such as the rotating transfer device of Spiers would
have been obvious. Id. The Examiner finds that such modification would
have been within the technical grasp of the person skilled in the art and
would achieve a predictable result. Id. at 7—8.
In addition to the arguments presented above for Rejection A,
Appellant contends that “the Examiner commits additional error by asserting
that it would have been obvious to modify Heath to include the rotating
transfer device of Spiers” because modifying Heath in the suggested manner
would change the principle of operation of Heath. Appeal Br. 15—16.
Appellant fails to identity reversible error by the Examiner. As with
claim 1, Appellant identifies the operation “of moving the carrier through
the pattern chamber” in Heath as the principle of operation that would be
undercut when combined with the teachings of Spiers. Appeal Br. 16.
However, and as the Examiner explains, “[t]his argument is not persuasive
since the principle operation of Heath would remain intact, since the
absorbent particles would still be deposited into the indentations of the web
so that it can be combined with a second web to form a sandwich structure.”
7
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
Final Act. 12. The component that is being modified by the combination
with Spiers is not the carrier of Heath, but rather the means for depositing
the superabsorbent particles into the indentations. Moreover, Appellant fails
to explain how a modification to the deposition device of Heath would
disrupt the operation of the carrier. Therefore, on this record, we sustain this
rejection.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8, 16, and 20—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Heath and Haubach.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heath,
Haubach, and Potnis.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9-15 and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Heath, Haubach and Spiers.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—22 are
affirmed.
8
Appeal 2017-001490
Application 14/535,419
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
9