Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13208827 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
13/208,827 08/12/2011 Jack Cheng Chang 12218 8800
27752 7590 08/29/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MAI, TRI M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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 JACK CHENG CHANG, LUCIO FRIAS, RICHARD SHANE
MAYS, LUKE ANTHONY SNIDER, TODD JEFFREY VISHNAUSKI 1
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
Technology Center 3700
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
This invention is directed a box package containing stacked
disposable absorbent articles that has top flaps each with a handle cutout.
Abstract and Figure 1 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reproduced below.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Procter & Gamble
Company. See App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
A package, comprising:
a rectangular box container formed of corrugated
cardboard, the box having a rectangular top panel, a
rectangular bottom panel, a pair of oppositely-disposed
rectangular side panels, a rectangular front panel, and a
rectangular back panel;
the top panel being formed at least in part of a pair
of opposing flaps, the flaps being integral with the
respective front and back panels and extending from
proximal edges at horizontal folds in the cardboard
defining upper edges of the front and back and outer
edges of the top, and the flaps having distal terminal
edges,
wherein each of the pair of opposing flaps has a
flap width measured along a direction parallel to its
associated horizontal fold and a flap length measured
along a direction perpendicular to its associated
horizontal fold, and each of the pair of opposing flaps has
a handle cutout therethrough, the handle cutout having a
cutout width of 15 mm to 35 mm and a cutout length and
having no sharp inside comer pointing toward a flap
edge, the cutout length being oriented along and
substantially centered along the flap width, wherein the
handle cutout is partial and has terminal ends, leaving a
portion of material attached along a fold line extending
between the terminal ends; the respective handle cutouts
being respectively disposed substantially opposite each
other;
wherein the corrugated cardboard comprises a first
layer of linerboard, a second layer of linerboard, and a
fluted medium disposed between the first linerboard and
the second linerboard, the fluted medium being of size C
flutes or larger, with the flutes oriented vertically;
wherein the box contains at least one inner
package, the inner package comprising a plurality of
stacked disposable absorbent articles wrapped in a
polymeric film bag; and
2
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
wherein there is a top clearance TC between the
inner package and the top panel of no more than 1 cm;
and
wherein the attached portion of material forms a
residual cutout flap within the handle cutout, and the
residual cutout flap has a Push-ln Force of no more than
18 pounds.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blocker (US 7,793,485), either
HP4780 or Ferguson (US 2,586,156) and Jonson (“Corrugated Board
Packing”). Answer 2—8.
The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blocker, either HP4780 or Ferguson, Jonson (“Corrugated
Board Packing”) and Lambert (US 3,015,597) or Stone (US 4,265,692).
Answer 8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 is
in error as the cited art does not teach the features of “the package
containing an inner package and having a top clearance between the inner
package and the top panel of no more than 1 cm (claim 1) or zero (claim 11),
and a handle cutout in the top panel with a width of 15 to 35 cm, with a
residual cutout flap.” App. Br. 5. Further, Appellants argue “there is no
teaching, motivation or suggestion in any of the references for such a
combination, or to combine features of the different references so as to
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief, dated August 17,
2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 10, 2016
(“Ans.”), and the Final Office Action, mailed March 17, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
3
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
modify any one of the primary references in a way that brings it within the
scope of Applicant’s current claims.” Id.
The Examiner provides a detailed response and explanation of the
findings related to the references on pages 9 through 14 of the Answer.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Blocker’s teaching of the packaging
having no wasted space, teaches the claim limitation of clearance being no
more than 1 cm or zero. Ans. 10. Further, with respect to the handholds on
the top flap, the Examiner finds that HP 4780 teaches the same design as
disclosed by Appellants, and Ferguson teaches finger holes, both of which
meet the claim. Id. With respect to the claimed dimensions of the handle
cutouts, the Examiner finds the dimensions are within the range of the size
of the human finger, and thus would be obvious. Ans. 10-11. Finally, the
Examiner concludes “claims are merely a collection of well-known standard
practices in this art of container.” Ans. 12—13.
We have reviewed the art cited by the Examiner, the Examiner’s
findings and we concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We
note Appellants’ arguments rely upon the teaching, suggestion, or
motivation (TSM) test to determine obviousness. In KSR, the Supreme
Court rejected the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, or
motivation (TSM) test in favor of a more expansive and flexible approach to
the determination of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 415 (2007). Specifically, the Court stated that “the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
4
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
Thus, to the extent Appellants’ argument is premised on strictly
applying the TSM test, it is not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, the
conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Id.: see also id. at 416 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Furthermore,
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” Id. at 418. In other words, “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
We agree with the Examiner the prior art contains known solutions that have
been used to improve one device and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that it could have been used to improve other prior
art devices in a predictable way. Appellants have not argued that it would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” to make the modifications suggested by the Examiner. See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Here we concur with the Examiner that the
claim is merely the combination of known design elements to perform their
known results. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
5
Appeal 2016-005803
Application 13/208,827
representative claim 1. Similarly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 3 through 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11, which have not been separately argued.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,3,4, 6, 8, 9, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6