Ex Parte Jackels

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14615456 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/615,456 02/06/2015
27752 7590 04/01/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans Adolf Jackels
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CM4037MQ 7707
EXAMINER
AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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 HANS ADOLF JACKELS
Appeal2018-005983
Application 14/615,456
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-005983
Application 14/615,456
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to an apparatus and a method for
making absorbent structures with channels embedded within the absorbent
structure (Spec. 1:9-11 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus for making an absorbent structure for an
absorbent article, comprising a first and second supporting
sheet and therebetween an absorbent layer, the absorbent layer
comprising an absorbent material, the apparatus comprising:
a) transfer devices for transferring the first and second
supporting sheets to first and second moving endless surfaces;
b) a feeder for feeding the absorbent material onto at
least the first supporting sheet at a depositing point on the first
moving endless surface, the absorbent material forming
absorbent regions upon the first supporting sheet, and one or
more channels between the absorbent regions, the channels
being substantially free of absorbent material;
c) an adhesive applicator for applying adhesive to at least
one of the first and second supporting sheets, at least within a
region of the channels;
wherein the first moving endless surface comprises one
or more substantially longitudinally extending first mating
strips, and the second moving endless surface comprises
corresponding longitudinally extending second mating strips,
the first and second mating strips acting upon each other by
applying pressure to the first and second supporting sheets at
1 The Appeal Brief on page 1 indicates that "Procter & Gamble Company" is
the assignee of record.
2
Appeal2018-005983
Application 14/615,456
least within a part of an area of the channels, so as to adhere
together the first and second supporting sheets.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Blessing (US 7,744,713 B2; June 29, 2010) in view of Schafer
(US 2009/0266478 Al; Oct. 29, 2009), EP '329 (Jackels, EP 2 532
329 Al; Dec. 12, 2012 ("EP '329")), and Schulz (US 6,277,226 Bl;
Aug. 21, 2001).
2. Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blessing
in view of Schafer, EP '329, Schulz, and Nauta (US 4,211,743; July 8,
1980).
3. Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending
Application No. 14/615,467.
Regarding rejection (1 ), Appellant argues subject matter common to
independent claims 1 and 9 only (App. Br. 6-7). We select claim 1 as
representative of the group. Any dependent claim not separately argued will
stand or fall with the independent claim from which it depends (i.e., claim 1
or claim 9). Regarding rejection (2), Appellant relies on arguments made
regarding claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Accordingly, claim 2 will stand or fall with
our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection, Appellant does not respond at
this time to the rejection because no claims are allowed (App. Br. 7).
Because Appellant does not specifically contest the merits of the
3
Appeal2018-005983
Application 14/615,456
obviousness-type double patenting rejection, we summarily affirm rejection
(3).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (1)
The Examiner's findings and conclusions are located on pages 3 to 6
of the Non-Final Action2 dated February 16, 2017. The Examiner explains
that the rejection involves the substitution of known rollers taught in the
prior art with raised surfaces as the bonding rollers in Blessing's apparatus
(Ans. 11 ). The Examiner finds that the rejection is based upon the
substitution of one known bonding roller for another in a similar bonding
process (Ans. 12).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained why it would
have been obvious to modify the carrier support means of Blessing and/or
the endless moving surfaces of Schafer such that the pressure is applied
between the first and second moving endless surfaces as recited in claims 1
and 9 (App. Br. 6). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not described
why it would have been obvious to modify the carrier support means of
Blessing or the endless moving supports of Schafer to include the mating
strips recited in claims 1 and 9 (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner finds Blessing teaches opposing rollers ( 497) and drum
470) that aid in bonding the top and bottom sheets (320, 330) (Non-Final
Act. 3). The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Schafer, Schulz,
and EP '329 would have suggested including channels in mating surfaces,
and bonding using mating strips, wherein the webs are brought into contact
2 The Examiner refers on page 2 of the Final Action, to the Non-Final Action
for a complete statement of the rejection.
4
Appeal2018-005983
Application 14/615,456
as they travel over the endless surface (Non-Final Act. 4---6). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide a patterned roller as
taught by Schulz as the opposing roller 497 in Blessing and/or Schafer to
assist in joining the webs together with a pattern of mating strips which
correspond to the strips disposed on the opposing roller (Non-Final Act. 6).
Therefore, contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner reasonably finds
that the prior art would have suggested substituting a roller with mating
strips that align with strips on an opposing roller for Blessing's conventional
roller 497 in order to aid in bonding the sheets 320 and 330 together while
providing areas without absorbent material. The Examiner's reason for
substituting the roller for Blessing roller 497 or Schafer's opposing roller is
to assist in joining the webs together. Appellant's argument does not
establish reversible error with the Examiner's reason for the substitution of
rollers.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection over
Blessing in view of Schafer, Schulz, and EP '329, and the§ 103 rejection
over Blessing in view of Schafer, Schulz, EP '329, and Nauta. The
Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection is
affirmed.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5