Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 2017

13435248 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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. 13/435,248 03/30/2012 EoYeon Hwang 64811435US01 5932 23556 7590 10/18/2017 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 EXAMINER DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3778 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2017 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 EOYEON HWANG, JIN YOUNG JUNG, WON YOUNG LEE, JINHEE LEE, RICHARD NORRIS DODGE II, DAVID ARTHUR FELL, ERIC DONALD JOHNSON, DEBRA JEAN MCDOWALL, ROBERT LEE POPP, ALLYSON MARIE SAGEL, LAWRENCE HOWELL SAWYER, DANIEL ROBERT SCHLINZ, MICHAEL W. VEITH, and KENDELL JEAN WILLIAMS ____________ Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,2481 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–15, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,248 2 According to Appellants, the invention is “directed towards an absorbent article[,] which can have improved intake and retention of liquid waste” and “which can reduce the amount of moisture in contact with the skin of the wearer.” Spec. 5, ll. 3–6. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. An absorbent article comprising: a. a backsheet layer and a bodyside liner bonded to the backsheet layer; b. opposing longitudinal side edges and opposing waist edges; c. an absorbent body comprising a wearer facing surface and a garment facing surface and positioned between the backsheet layer and the bodyside liner; d. a target area for target acquisition of liquid waste; and e. an acquisition layer comprising a basis weight of less than 100 gsm and positioned between the absorbent body and the bodyside liner, the acquisition layer point fusion bonded to the bodyside liner at least partially in the target area, wherein the point fusion bonding in the target area is with a bond pattern providing greater than 50 bonds per square inch, and a majority of bonding points of the point fusion bonding in the target area having an area less than 2.5 square millimeters. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows2: I. claims 1–5, 7, 12–14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ebitsuka (US 2009/0131896 Al, pub. May 21, 2009); 2 We consolidate and reorder the rejections. Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,248 3 II. claims 1–7, 10, 12–14, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka and Daniels (US 2002/0004654 A1, pub. Jan. 10, 2002); III. claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka and Chmielewski (US 6,068,620, iss. May 30, 2000); IV. claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka, Daniels, and Chmielewski; V. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka and Mizutani (US 2005/0027277 A1, pub. Feb. 3, 2005); VI. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka, Daniels, and Mizutani; VII. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka and Braverman (WO 01/17475 A1, pub. Mar. 15, 2001); VIII. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ebitsuka, Daniels, and Braverman; IX. claims 1–4, 10, 12–15, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braverman and Daniels; X. claims 5–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braverman, Daniels, Ebitsuka, and Chmielewski; and XI. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braverman, Daniels, and Mizutani. Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,248 4 ANALYSIS Rejection I Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 12– 14, and 22 as anticipated by Ebitsuka is in error, because Ebitsuka does not disclose claim 1’s recitation of bonding points in a target area having an area less than 2.5 square millimeters. Appeal Br. 3–5. More specifically, “[w]hile Appellants agree that Ebitsuka does disclose the range of areas for fusion sections . . . of 1–300 mm2, Appellants do not agree that Ebitsuka is disclosing such a range of areas for fusion sections . . . in the target area.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, Appellants argue that [b]ecause Ebitsuka discloses that the permeation holes H in the surface sheet 1 must be at least 3 mm2 in the excretion region[,] and [that] the fusion sections m, m on the surface sheet 1 must be longer in both the MD [direction (i.e., the longitudinal direction)] and CD [direction (i.e., the transverse direction)] than the diameter of the permeation holes H (1.95[ ]mm), then Ebitsuka is necessarily disclosing that the area of the fusion sections m, m in the excretion region have an area greater than 3 mm2. Id. at 4–5 (emphasis added). Based on our review of the record, including Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants do not persuade us that Ebitsuka’s bonding points in a target area must be larger than the permeation holes, such that the bonding points must have an area greater than a minimum area of each permeation hole, which is 3 mm2. As stated above, both Appellants and the Examiner agree that Ebitsuka teaches bonding points having an area less than 2.5 mm2. See, e.g., id. at 5. Appellants argue that this teaching of bonding points with an area of less than 2.5 mm2 is inapplicable within the target area, because “Ebitsuka discloses that [within the target area] the lengths of the fusion sections m, m Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,248 5 should be longer than the permeation holes H of the surface sheet 1.” Id. at 4. Appellants do not, however, persuade us that Ebitsuka’s bonding points in the target area either “must” (id.) or “should” (id.) be longer than the permeation holes. Rather, Ebitsuka teaches that “it is preferable to select the size such that the lengths of the fusion sections . . . are longer compared to the permeation holes H of the surface sheet 1.” Ebitsuka ¶¶ 99, 114 (emphasis added). We determine that this stated preference within the target area does not contradict Ebitsuka’s disclosure that bonded areas (including the target area) may have bonding points with an area of less than 2.5 mm2. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as Appellants do not argue separately against the rejections of claims 2–5, 7, 12–14, and 22 that depend from claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of these claims. Rejection II Appellants argue that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, based on a combination of Ebitsuka and Daniels, is erroneous because Ebitsuka teaches away from being modified to provide bonding points in a target area having an area less than 2.5 square millimeters. Appeal Br. 7–8. We disagree, inasmuch as we agree with the Examiner that Ebitsuka itself teaches bonding points in a target area having an area less than 2.5 square millimeters. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as Appellants do not argue separately against the rejections of claims 2–7, 10, 12–14, 21, and 22 that depend from claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims. Appeal 2016-005006 Application 13/435,248 6 Rejections III–VIII Appellants argue each of rejections III–VIII are in error because no reference remedies the deficiency in claim 1’s rejections. Appeal Br. 9. Inasmuch as we do not agree with Appellants that there is any deficiency in the anticipation or obviousness rejections of claim 1, we sustain each of the obviousness rejections of claims 8, 9, 11, and 15 that depend from claim 1. Rejections IX–XI Inasmuch as we sustain at least one obviousness rejection of each of claims 1–15, 21, and 22, we do not find it necessary to reach the remaining obviousness rejections of these claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15, 21, and 22. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED