Ex Parte Orr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

13455925 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 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.
13/455,925 04/25/2012 Jill Marlene Orr 12452 3837
27752 7590 08/09/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
UTT, ETHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY1
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7 and 9-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The inventors are identified as Jill Marlene Orr, Richard George Coe,
John Lee Hammons, Sarah Beth Gross, Leroy Joseph Kocher, and
Timothy Ian Mullane.
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A web comprising:
a. alternating ridges and grooves; and
b. alternating regions of lower basis weight and higher
basis weight;
wherein the higher basis weight regions are located in the
ridges and grooves; wherein the lower basis weight regions are
located in the sidewalls between the ridges and grooves; and
wherein the higher basis weight regions located in the grooves
comprise apertures.
10. A web comprising alternating ridges and grooves with
sidewalls therebetween, wherein the ridges are hollow and have
tops and the grooves are hollow and have bottoms, wherein the
grooves comprise apertures, and wherein the web is a
nonwoven web.
Appellant (App. Br. 3) requests review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
(a) claims 1—5, 7, 10, 15, 16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell (US 2006/0087053 Al, published April 27,
2006);
(b) claims 6, 9, 11—14 and 17—19, all rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Donnell.
2
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—7
and 9 for the reasons presented by Appellant. However, we AFFIRM the
Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 10—20 for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Our reasoning follows.
Claims 1—7 and 92
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is directed to a web comprising alternating ridges and
grooves comprising apertures, wherein the ridges and grooves have higher
basis weight regions and the sidewalls between the ridges and grooves have
lower basis weight regions.
The Examiner finds O’Donnell discloses a web comprising alternating
ridges and grooves comprising apertures. Final Act. 2; O’Donnell Figures
1—6, 8,||2. The Examiner finds O’Donnell’s ridges and grooves have
higher basis weight regions while the lower basis weight regions are located
in the sidewalls between the ridges and grooves because of how O’Donnell
forms the ridges and grooves in the web. Final Act. 2—3; O’Donnell Figure
2, || 58—65. Thus, based on this disclosure, the Examiner concludes
O’Donnell anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues O’Donnell is silent with regard to whether the higher
basis weight regions are located in the ridges and grooves and the lower
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
basis weight regions are located in the sidewalls between the ridges and
grooves as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4. Appellant also asserts the
apertures in the ridges (grooves)3 of O’Donnell’s volcano-like structure are
limited to apertures that comprise no material and, thus, have no basis
weight. App. Br. 4; O’Donnell Figure 4.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner does not direct us to any
portion of O’Donnell that describes the basis weight of the ridges, grooves
or sidewalls between these. While the Examiner asserts that it would have
been expected for O’Donnell’s web structures to comprise ridges, grooves
and sidewalls having the respective claimed basis weight regions because
O’Donnell makes the web in a manner similar to Appellant (Ans. 11;
O’Donnell Figure 2; Spec. 18, 19), Appellant presents a reasonable technical
argument why the end of the ridge structure comprising the aperture would
not be expected to comprise higher basis weight. App. Br. 4; O’Donnell
Figure 4. The Examiner does not adequately explain how O’Donnell arrives
at the claimed groove structure given that the ridge (groove) disclosed by
O’Donnell is an aperture having no basis weight. Compare O’Donnell
Figure 2, with Spec. Figure 16. Therefore, the Examiner has not adequately
3 We believe Appellant’s reference to ridge in the argument is intended to be
the same as the groove structure comprising apertures identified by the
Examiner in applying the cited art. Final Act. 3; O’Donnell Figure 4, || 58—
65. Both the Examiner and Appellant appear to recognize that what is called
a ridge and what is called a groove is based on the orientation of the web.
Final Act. 3; App. Br. 4. Therefore, for purposes of consistency in our
discussion of the evidence and given that the claims require the grooves to
comprise apertures, we treat Appellant’s reference to the ridge as the prior
art’s equivalent groove structure.
4
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
explained how O’Donnell anticipates or renders obvious the claimed
invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1—5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (b) and 103(a) and of claims 6 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellant and given
above.
Claims 10—2 04
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 10 requires a web comprising alternating ridges
and grooves with sidewalls therebetween, wherein the ridges are hollow and
have tops and the grooves are hollow and have bottoms, wherein the grooves
comprise apertures, and wherein the web is a nonwoven web.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of rejection
for claim 10. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues O’Donnell does not teach or suggest the ridges are
hollow and have tops and the grooves are hollow and have bottoms, as is
recited in claim 10. App. Br. 4.
4 Appellant presents arguments addressing the rejection of independent
claims 10 and 16 together. App. Br. 4—5. Appellant does not present
additional arguments for the dependent claims 11—15 and 17—20. Id. at 5.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 10 as representative of the subject
matter before us on appeal. Claims 11—20 stand or fall with claim 10.
5
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
We are unpersuaded by this argument. During examination, claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification. In general,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the [Appellants’] [Specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In describing the ridges and groove, Appellant defines the term
“hollow” as open spaces having no web material present that are located
under the top of the ridge and above the bottom of the groove. Spec. 7.
However, Appellant does not direct us to a specific definition for the terms
“top” and “bottom” in the Specification. In this case, the ordinary meaning
of the term “top” is “the upper or highest part, section, point, or surface of
anything.”5 The ordinary meaning of the term “bottom” is “the lowest
part.”6 Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “top” is the
highest part of the ridge structure while the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “bottom” is the lowest part of the groove structure.
Appellant has not shown how the terms “top” and “bottom,” used in
5 “Top”, David B. Guralnik. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the
American Language. 2nd College Ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984
Print.
6 “Bottom”, David B. Guralnik. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the
American Language. 2nd College Ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984
Print.
6
Appeal 2016-008267
Application 13/455,925
conjunction with the term “hollow,” excludes the ridge and groove structures
disclosed by O’Donnell. O’Donnell Figure 4.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
10, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, we also sustain
the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 10—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
See In re Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—7 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) are reversed.
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 10—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(b) and 103(a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7