Ex Parte Schlinz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 2017

13299461 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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. 13/299,461 11/18/2011 Daniel Robert Schlinz 64689755US01 1033 23556 7590 08/25/2017 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 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 DANIEL ROBERT SCHLINZ, GEORGIA LYNN ZEHNER, ERIC DONALD JOHNSON, and NANCY ELLEN DAWSON ____________________ Appeal 2016-001432 Application 13/299,461 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: THOMAS F. SMEGAL, SCOTT C. MOORE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Olson (US 6,447,497 B1, iss. Sept. 10, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-001432 Application 13/299,461 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a disposable absorbent article with split fastener. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An absorbent article for personal wear about a wearer's waist, the article having a transverse axis and a longitudinal centerline, and comprising: a liquid permeable inner surface for facing the wearer; an outer surface for facing away from the wearer; an absorbent body disposed therebetween; a front waist region, a back waist region, and a crotch region extending longitudinally between and interconnecting the front and back waist regions; a front side panel attached to the front waist region and a back side panel attached to the back waist region, the front and back side panels being releasably attachable at a refastenable seam to define a wear configuration of the absorbent article having a waist opening and a leg opening spaced from the waist opening, wherein the front and back side panels each extend from the waist opening to the leg opening; a closure component coupled to or integral with the front side panel and disposed adjacent the leg opening, an anchor component coupled to or integral with one of the front and back side panels and disposed adjacent the waist opening, a closure landing zone coupled to or integral with the back side panel, and an anchor landing zone coupled to or integral with the side panel opposite the anchor component, wherein the closure component is fastened to the closure landing zone to form a closure connection and the anchor component is fastened to the anchor landing zone to form an anchor connection when the article is in a wear configuration, wherein the refastenable seam includes the closure and anchor connections, and wherein the anchor connection has higher peel and shear strengths per unit area than the peel and shear strengths per unit area of the closure connection. Appeal 2016-001432 Application 13/299,461 3 OPINION Claims 1 and 19 are independent. Appellant argues the rejection of all of the claims together. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Olson teaches all of the features of claim 1, even though it does not contain an “explicit recitation that the anchor connection has higher peel and shear strengths per unit area than the peel and shear strengths per unit area of the closure connection.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines that this: would have been obvious . . . because Olson teaches [] the use of both adhesive [112] (closure connection) and mechanical [100] (anchor connection) fasteners and describes the mechanical fastener as the more aggressive fastener (col. 4, lines 28–31) which can [be] altered in order to obtain the desired level of securement as set forth in at least col. 4, lines 24–28. Id. Appellants argue that “the anchor component cited by the Examiner in Olson, reference numeral 100, is not adjacent the waist opening,” as required by claim 1. Br. 4. Appellants state that “the anchor component 100 . . . is not adjacent the waist edge due to the adhesive portion 110 . . . being adjacent the waist edge 112.” Id. Appellants further argue that only “[t]he adhesive portion[s] 110, 112 [are] adjacent the waist edge and the leg edge respectively,” but as these are “the same material and analogous to closure component” Olson does not have closure and anchor components adjacent the waist edge and leg edge respectively as claimed. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner responds that “‘Adjacent’ is defined as in close proximity or near to” and that “[t]here is no requirement that precludes an intervening space, element, etc. from being present.” Ans. 4. We agree with Appeal 2016-001432 Application 13/299,461 4 the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Id. Appellants’ argument implies that “adjacent” is limited to being directly adjacent, and/or the closest feature to. This is not required by the claim, and Appellants do not present any evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims to be so limited. We also note that Appellants’ figures show an intervening space between the end of the anchor component 88 and the waist opening 72. See e.g., Spec. Fig. 1. Thus, the Examiner’s reading of the term “adjacent” is consistent with the Specification and we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–16, 19, and 20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED