Ex Parte McDaniel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13333150 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
64784724US01 8986
EXAMINER
KID WELL, MICHELE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/333,150 12/21/2011
23556 7590 08/23/2017
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI54956
Mary Lou McDaniel
08/23/2017 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 MARY LOU MCDANIEL, JOHN DAVID AMUNDSON,
and STEVEN CRAIG GEHLING
Appeal 2016-000664
Application 13/333,150
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Weinstrauch (US 6, 177,608 Bl, iss. Jan. 23, 2001).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Feb. 3, 2015) and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 21, 2011), and to
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 15, 2015) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 3, 2014).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is “Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000664
Application 13/333,150
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention relates to pledgets and tampons. Spec. 1.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 (Br. 6
(Claims App.)) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A pledget comprising:
a. an absorbent core having a longitudinal axis;
b. a cover in communication with the absorbent
core, the cover comprising a first edge and a second
edge; and
c. a contact member in communication with the
cover, the contact member comprising a first contact
element and a second contact element at least partially
separated from each other.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue claims 1—22 as a group. See Br.2. We consider
claim 1 as representative; claims 2—22 stand or fall with claim 1. See
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in
error because Weinstrauch does not disclose all three components required
by independent claim 1 (and similarly required by independent claim 12).
Br. 3. Specifically, the Appellants argue that Weinstrauch’s embodiment
disclosing barrier strips formed by non-woven strips does not disclose
limitation c of a contact member in communication with the cover having
two contacts elements at least partially separated from each other. Id. The
Appellants argue that Weinstrauch “indicates” that “the cover comprises
barrier strips 37 integrally joined thereto” and, thus, does not disclose a
2
Appeal 2016-000664
Application 13/333,150
contact member separate from the cover, as required by the claim. Id.
(citing Weinstrauch, col. 4,11. 10—12).
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Weinstrauch, at Figures 1
and 9, discloses a contact member 14 in communication with cover 4, the
contact member comprising first and second contact elements at least
partially separated from each other, as recited in limitation c of claim 1.
Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6 (citing Weinstrauch col. 2,11. 60-67). The
Examiner explains that Weinstrauch’s grooves 14, which are “embossed
onto the cover,” “themselves provide the spaced apart sections defined as the
contact member.” Final Act. 4, Ans. 7. In other words, one groove 14 forms
the first contact element of the claimed contact member and another groove
14 forms the second contact element of the claimed contact member. The
Examiner makes clear that the barrier strips are not relied upon as disclosing
the contact member. Final Act. 4.
The Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive at least because they do
not adequately address why the Examiner errs in finding that the grooves of
Weinstrauch form the claimed contact member. More specifically, the
Appellants do not provide evidence or technical reasoning how or why
Weinstrauch’s grooves 14 do not communicate with the cover 4, are not at
least partially separated from each other, and/or are not separate from the
cover 4. Rather, the Appellants argue that the barrier strips do not disclose
the contact member (see Br. 3), despite the Examiner’s clear statement that
the barrier strips are not relied upon as disclosing the claimed contact
member (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7).
3
Appeal 2016-000664
Application 13/333,150
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and of claims 2—22 which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4