Ex Parte Koch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

14453641 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/453,641 08/07/2014 Piotr KOCH CM3259CCC 1548
27752 7590 09/01/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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 PIOTR KOCH and DIRK BOYSEN
Applicant-Appellant'. The Procter & Gamble Company1
Appeal 2016-007881
Application 14/453,641
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 21—23 in the above-identified application.2 We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies The Procter & Gamble Company as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Brief 1, Nov. 23, 2015 (hereinafter Appeal Br.).
2 Final Office Action, July 23, 2015 (hereinafter Final Action); Examiner’s
Answer, June 7, 2016 (hereinafter Answer).
Appeal 2016-007881
Application 14/453,641
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention “relates to a process for making multi­
compartment pouches,” which according to Appellant “is very versatile and
suitable for making multi-compartment pouches of complex geometry.”
Spec.3 1.
Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is representative:
21. A process for making a detergent water-soluble pouch
having a plurality of compartments the process comprising the
steps of:
a) making a first web of open pouches in a first pouch
making unit having a forming surface, wherein the forming
surface of the first pouch making unit is a horizontal unit,
wherein the first web of pouches is an open web containing a
composition in powder form;
b) making a second web of open or closed pouches in a
second pouch making unit having a forming surface, wherein
the forming surface of the second pouch making unit is circular,
wherein the second pouch making unit is placed above the first
pouch making unit, and wherein the pouches formed in the
second web are dual-compartment pouches containing
compositions in liquid form and having a side-by-side
configuration;
c) directly combining the first and second webs of pouches
while the first and second webs of pouches continue advancing
on the corresponding forming surfaces and without removing
the first and second webs ofpouches from the corresponding
forming surf aces until the first and second webs have been
combined, wherein the forming surfaces bring the first and
second webs of pouches into contact and preferably exert
pressure on them to seal the webs; and
d) cutting the resulting web of pouches to produce
individual pouches having a plurality of compartments, wherein
each individual pouch comprises two side-by-side
3 Specification, Aug. 7, 2014 (hereinafter Spec.).
2
Appeal 2016-007881
Application 14/453,641
compartments containing the liquid composition superimposed
over a compartment containing the powder composition.
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis of disputed limitation added).
The Examiner rejects claims 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Catlin.4 See Final Action 2—3.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues the claims as a group. See
Appeal Br. 4—5. Therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we
limit our discussion to claim 21. Claims 22 and 23 stand or fall with
claim 21.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Catlin discloses every limitation of
claims 21—23. See Final Action 2—3. This includes, according to the
Examiner, “combining the first and the second webs while they continue
advancing on the corresponding surfaces and without removing the first and
the second webs from the corresponding forming surfaces until the webs
have been combined.” Id. at 4 (citing Catlin || 34^46).
A relevant portion of 134 of Catlin reads as follows:
The process comprising the steps of: i) forming a first moving
web of filled and optionally sealed pouches releasably mounted
on a first moving (preferably rotating) endless surface; ii) form­
ing a second moving web of filled and sealed pouches releasably
mounted on a second moving (preferably rotating) endless sur­
face; iii) superposing and sealing or securing said first and sec­
ond moving webs to form a superposed and sealed web ....
4 Catlin et al., US 2002/0169092 A1 (published Nov. 14, 2002). The
Examiner also refers to Catlin et al, EP 1 504 994 A2 (published Feb. 9,
2005), see Final Action 2, which appears to be substantially the same
disclosure.
3
Appeal 2016-007881
Application 14/453,641
Catlin 134. Appellant argues that this passage does not “expressly or
inherently teach that the first and second webs of pouches are not removed
from the corresponding forming surfaces until the first and second webs of
pouches are combined as required by claim 21.” Appeal Br. 5.
In the Answer, the Examiner also cites 126—132 and 161—178
(particularly 1132 and 1178) of Catlin as specifically teaching “that both
webs are on the corresponding forming endless surfaces during forming,
filling, superposing, sealing, and cutting.” Answer 4—5. Appellant did not
submit a reply brief in response to the Answer.
In light of 134 and the Examiner’s further citations to Catlin, we do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error in the rejection.
Catlin’s 1132 describes the steps of forming, superposition, sealing, and
cutting on the same endless surface, followed by removal of pouches from
the surface. Likewise, H 161—178 describe a process in which all the above
steps, including cutting the pouches, are performed on continuous moving
surfaces.
Because Appellant has not identified reversible error in the rejection,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—23.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
4