Ex Parte Schoon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2017

13302429 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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. 64766387US01 8819 EXAMINER RUSHING-TUCKER, CHINYERE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/302,429 11/22/2011 23556 7590 08/28/2017 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Docketing 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI54956 Bradley Schoon 08/28/2017 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 BRADLEY SCHOON, BRIAN R. VOGT, and STEPHEN A. KOLASINSKI Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bradley Schoon et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 and 14—18. See Appeal Br. 1. Claims 11—13 have been canceled. See id. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to a method of folding a pant like disposable absorbent garment.” Spec., p. 2,11. 2—3. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of folding a pant-like disposable absorbent garment, the method comprising: providing said garment, said garment having a waist opening and two leg openings, said garment defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, said garment defining a first waist side region adjacent a first side edge, a second waist side region adjacent a second side edge, a waist center region positioned transversely between the first waist side region and the second waist side region, and a crotch region longitudinally below said waist center region, the garment further including an absorbent core; folding the garment along a transversely extending fold line so as to bring the crotch region into superposed relation with the waist center region; providing a trough, the trough comprising a floor, a first side wall, and a second side wall, the trough defining a trough width extending from the first side wall to the second side wall', pressing the waist center region into the trough', and folding the garment along a longitudinally extending first fold line so as to position the first waist side region over the waist center region, the first fold line being adjacent the first side wall, and folding the garment along a longitudinally extending second fold line so as to position the second waist side region over the waist center region, the second fold line being adjacent the second side wall, wherein both such folding steps occur while the waist center region is in the trough. 2 Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Barr US 5,868,727 Feb. 9, 1999 Franklin US 6,723,035 B2 Apr. 20, 2004 Sosalla US 2007/0129230 A1 June 7, 2007 Coenen US 2007/0142194 A1 June 21, 2007 Coe US 7,500,941 B2 Mar. 10, 2009 Uda US 8,105,304 B2 Jan. 31,2012 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1—10, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr and Uda. Final Act. 2-4. II. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, and Franklin. Id. at 7—8. III. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, and Sosalla. Id. at 8—9. IV. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, Coe and Coenen. Id. at 9. ANALYSIS Each of claims 1—10 and 14—18 requires, in relevant part, the steps of “providing a trough, the trough comprising a floor, a first side wall, and a second side wall, the trough defining a trough width extending from the first side wall to the second side wall,” and “pressing the waist center region into 3 Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 the trough.” Appeal Br. 11—14, Claims App. Appellants argue that Barr, as relied upon in the Examiner’s rejections, does not teach such steps. See id. at 4—6. We agree with Appellants. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner found that Barr discloses a method including, inter alia, a step of “providing a trough (Fig 8), the trough comprising a floor (78), a first side wall (86), and a second side wall (88), the trough defining a trough width extending from the first side wall (86) to the second side wall (88).” Final Act. 2 (citing Barr, Fig. 8). The Examiner also found that Barr discloses “pressing the absorbent garment center region into the trough.” Id. at 3 (citing Barr, Fig. 8). Appellants persuasively assert that the folding device shown in Figure 8 of Barr does not constitute a “trough” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 5. Figure 8 of Barr depicts “the device for completing the folding operation of the sanitary napkin.” Barr, col. 6,11. 30—31. The folding device includes conveyor belt 78, having an array of apertures 80 that grips the sanitary napkins by vacuum (see id., col. 9,11. 63—66), and longitudinally extending guides 86 and 88 to gradually fold the ends of the sanitary napkin (see id., col. 10,11. 25—28). To the extent that Barr discloses providing a folding device having a floor, first and second side walls, and some distance between the side walls, Barr’s folding device does not constitute a trough having a trough width extending from a first side wall to a second side wall. Appellants also persuasively assert that, even if Barr’s folding device did constitute a trough, “the method of Barr has not been shown to include the step of pressing the sanitary napkin into said trough as required by the claims.” Appeal Br. 5. In this regard, the Examiner takes the position that “[t]he rollers of Barr are pressing the center region into the trough, because 4 Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 by holding the center region down the rollers are pressing the product into the floor (78), between the first (86) and second (88) side walls.” Ans. 10. However, we agree with Appellants that “[t]he rollers illustrated in Fig. 8 [of Barr] have not been shown to be pressing the product into the purported ‘trough,’” but, rather, “the rollers appear to hold down the product after folding.” Appeal Br. 6. Pressing into the trough, as the claims recite, suggests that at least some part of the article is initially out of the trough before pressing. Here, Barr’s sanitary napkin is already positioned on conveyor belt 78 before the rollers apply downward pressure to the folded ends of the napkin. See id. Thus, to the extent that Barr’s rollers press the folded ends of the sanitary napkin downward against conveyor belt 78 (see Barr, Fig. 8), such pressing is not into a trough, as required by the claims. In short, the Examiner has not sufficiently established findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Barr teaches the disputed limitations as claimed. These unsupported findings from Barr pervade the rejections of claims 1—10 and 14—18. See Final Act. 2—9. We note that Uda, Franklin, Sosalla, Coe, and Coenen were relied on by the Examiner for teaching additional features, but not to cure the above-noted deficiencies with respect to Barr. See id. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a proper case of obviousness. On this basis, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1—10 and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal 2016-005752 Application 13/302,429 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr and Uda. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, and Franklin. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, and Sosalla. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barr, Uda, Coe and Coenen. REVERSED 6