Ex Parte Polat et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 11, 2019

14704135 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/704,135 05/05/2015 27752 7590 01/15/2019 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Osman Polat 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. 10361MC2 7951 EXAMINER SALVA TORE, LYNDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/15/2019 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 OSMAN POLAT, DEAN VAN PHAN, PAUL DENNIS TROKHAN, KEMAL VATANSEVERCATALAN, and ALAN HOW ARD ULLMAN Appeal2018-002018 Application 14/704,135 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, LILAN REN, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant (The Procter & Gamble Company) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The claims are to a method for making a fibrous substrate. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for making a fibrous substrate, the method compnsmg: Appeal2018-002018 Application 14/704,135 depositing from a headbox onto a F ourdrinier wire a slurry comprising cellulosic fibers, from 10% to 30% synthetic fibers, and from 40 ppm to about 50 ppm of a hydrophilizing agent to form an embryonic web, de-watering the embryonic web to form a web having a consistency of at least 50% consistency; adhering the web to a surface of a Yankee dryer; and creping the web off of the Yankee dryer after the web reaches a consistency of at least 90%: and, wherein after washing with water according to the Method for Durability of Association of Hydrophilizing Agent and Synthetic Fibers herein, the contact angle of water on the synthetic fibers is less than 70 degrees. Harmon Manning Trokhan Marsh The References us 3,794,557 us 5,094,717 us 5,840,403 US 2003/0203195 Al The Rejections Feb.26, 1974 Mar. 10, 1992 Nov. 24, 1998 Oct. 30, 2003 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as follows: claims 1 and 3---6 over Harman in view of Marsh, claim 2 over Harman in view of Marsh and Manning, and claim 7 over Harman in view of Marsh and Trokhan. OPINION We affirm the rejections. Although the Examiner applies additional references when rejecting claims 2 and 7, the Appellant argues the claims as a group (Br. 3--4). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. Claims 2-7 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 2 Appeal2018-002018 Application 14/704,135 Hannon makes a fibrous web containing textile length rayon fibers by adding a dispersing agent then textile length rayon fibers to an aqueous medium followed by moderate stirring and mild agitation, thereby dispersing the textile length rayon fibers with minimal fiber flocculation and clumping (col. 3, 11. 38--48). The dispersing agent can be polyethylene oxide (which is one of the Appellant's hydrophilizing agents (Spec. 19:19--21)) and is present in an amount of about 1 to about 200 ppm (col. 4, 11. 20-21, 35-38). The dispersing agent is very water soluble and hydrophilic, associates with water to form a viscous aqueous solution, and coats the fiber surfaces to make them slippery, thereby deterring the formation of clumps, tangles, and bundles (col. 4, 11. 1-3, 10-15). The textile length rayon fibers can be blended with up to 99% natural fibers such as cellulosic fibers or synthetic fibers such as polyamide or polyester fibers (which are among the Appellant's synthetic fibers (Spec. 8:33-34)) ( col. 5, 11. 39---63). Marsh makes tissue and towel products containing crosslinked cellulosic fibers using an apparatus comprising a head box (10), Fourdrinier wire (20) through which a papermaking furnish is dewatered to produce an embryonic web ( 40), a vacuum dewatering box ( 66), predryers ( 68), and a Yankee dryer (70) from which the web is dry creped (Abstract, ,r 93; Fig. 3). The Appellant asserts that "[ t ]he hydrophilic dispersing agent of Harmon is focused on the treatment of aqueous media combined with rayon fibers and not synthetic fibers" (Br. 3). Harmon discloses that as much as 99% of the fibers can be non-rayon fibers such as cellulosic or synthetic fibers (col. 5, 11. 39---63). The Appellant asserts that "Appellant's hydrophilizing agent is taught for inclusion because the association of the hydrophilizing agent with 3 Appeal2018-002018 Application 14/704,135 synthetic fibers enables the synthetic fibers to display hydrophilic characteristics which in tum allow the typical generally hydrophobic nature of synthetic fibers to be overcome" (Br. 2). That argument is not well taken because it is directed toward a limitation which is not in the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCP A 1982) ("[ A Jppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). Moreover, the Appellant's Specification merely states that "it is surmised that the hydrophilizing agent becomes associated with one or more surfaces of the hydrophobic synthetic fiber" (Spec. 17:24--25). The Appellant asserts that the hydrophilizing agent "allows for the dispersion of such fibers throughout the nonwoven fibrous structure versus clumping of the same fibers in the absence of the hydrophilizing agent" (Br. 2-3), whereas "Harmon is not focused on rendering the rayon fibers themselves to be more hydrophilic but are [sic] rather focused on changing the viscosity of the media carrying the fibers" (Br. 3). Harmon discloses that the dispersing agent is very hydrophilic and coats the fibers, thereby, like the Appellant's hydrophilizing agent (Spec. 17:29-33), deterring clumping of the fibers (col. 4, 11. 1-2, 10-15). The Appellant asserts that "there is no teaching or suggestion in either Harmon or Marsh of Appellant's claimed invention of adding hydrophilizing agent to the slurry in the headbox to product a fibrous substrate having a contact angle of water on the synthetic fibers is [sic] less than 70 degrees, after washing" (Br. 3). The Examiner finds that the combination of Harmon and Marsh would meet those claim requirements due to "use of like materials such as a 4 Appeal2018-002018 Application 14/704,135 mixture of cellulose and synthetic fibers and the claimed amount of hydrophilizing agent and the use of like process such as forming a slurry of fibers and hydrophilizing agent, dewatering, adhering the web to a Yankee dryer and creping" (Final Act. 4). Because that finding is reasonable and the Appellant has not challenged it, we accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424,425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1 and 3---6 over Harman in view of Marsh, claim 2 over Harman in view of Marsh and Manning, and claim 7 over Harman in view of Marsh and Trokhan are affirmed. 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. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5