Peter Wiedmann et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14273836 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/273,836 05/09/2014 Peter Wiedmann 12890Q 4391
27752 7590 09/30/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
FRY, PATRICK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER WIEDMANN, TODD DOUGLAS LENSER,
RICKY REYNALDO YANEZ JR., YOICHIRO YAMAMOTO, and
ANDREAS JOSEF DREHER
____________

Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Procter & Gamble Company (“Appellant”)1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Procter & Gamble Company is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to systems and methods for
folding disposable absorbent articles in a nip between first and second
carriers,” specifically including “tucker blades configured to maximize a
period of time wherein the leading edges move at speeds through the nip that
are relatively close to the speeds of the first and second carriers.” Spec.,
p. 1, ll. 8–11. Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for folding absorbent articles, the method
comprising the steps of:
conveying an absorbent article at a first speed (S1) in a
first direction on a first carrier to define an article transport
plane, wherein the absorbent article includes a first surface and
a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the
absorbent article includes a first end and a second end, and
wherein the absorbent article includes a first end region and a
second end region, and a central region located between the
first and second end regions;
advancing the first end region past a nip defined between
the first carrier and a second carrier;
rotating a tucker blade, wherein the tucker blade includes
a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface,
and wherein the tucker blade includes a leading edge and a
trailing edge, wherein the leading edge and the trailing edge
move through the article transport plane at the nip as the tucker
blade rotates;
contacting the first surface of the absorbent article with
the leading edge of the tucker blade thereby creating a fold line
across the central region of the absorbent article;
redirecting the central region of the absorbent article in a
second direction into the nip with the leading edge of the tucker
blade;
Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

3
maintaining contact between the fold line and the leading
edge of the tucker blade for a total time period (Ttot) while
portions of the leading edge contacting the fold line move at
speeds (Smax) of at least 0.8 times the first speed (0.8*S1) for a
time period (Tmax) of at least 0.5 times the total time
period (0.5*Ttot); and
conveying the folded absorbent article in the second
direction between the first carrier and the second carrier away
from the article transport plane.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Wiedmann US 7,617,656 B2 Nov. 17, 2009
LaVon US 2011/0247199 A1 Oct. 13, 2011
Ishikawa JP 2012-75627 A Apr. 19, 2012

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmann and Ishikawa.
Final Act. 2–8.
II. Claims 3, 8, 9, and 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Wiedmann, Ishikawa, and LaVon.
Id. at 8–15.

Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Rejections I and II, both of which depend on a
combination of teachings from Wiedmann and Ishikawa, are deficient based
on an assertion that Ishikawa’s teaching of distribution members moving
with a constant speed that is equal to the conveyor belt speed is insufficient
to render obvious the disputed claim limitations. See Appeal Br. 4–5
(focusing on independent claim 1); see also id. at 6, 7 (relying on the same
substantive argument for independent claims 12 and 19). In particular, the
disputed claim limitations at issue are recitations that require “maintaining
contact between the fold line and the leading edge of the tucker blade for a
total time period (Ttot) while portions of the leading edge contacting the fold
line move at speeds (Smax) of at least 0.8 times the first speed (0.8*S1) for a
time period (Tmax) of at least 0.5 times the total time period (0.5*Ttot).”
See id., Claims App. Appellant asserts that Ishikawa’s teaching of constant
speeds does not sufficiently suggest “moving portions of leading edges of
blades that are in contact with a fold line at speeds and a period of time as
claimed.” Id. at 5.
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant’s
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings from
Wiedmann or Ishikawa, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, or the Examiner’s reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is
rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and
in light of the Examiner’s thorough responses to Appellant’s arguments. See
Final Act. 2–15; Ans. 2–9.
Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

5
In particular, Appellant’s assertion does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s explanation that “Ishikawa discloses moving the distribution
members . . . at a constant speed that is equal to the conveyor belt . . .
speed,” such that “[t]he portion of the distribution members . . . that contacts
the absorbent articles . . . is interpreted to [likewise] have a constant speed
that is equal to the conveyor belt . . . speed,” and thus “[t]he speed of the
distribution members . . . while contacting the absorbent article . . . is the
same as when the distribution members [are] not contacting the absorbent
articles . . . since the distribution members . . . are disclosed having a
constant speed.” Ans. 3 (citing Ishikawa, p. 6, para. 19 of translation)
(emphasis added). In other words, in the Examiner’s modification of
Wiedmann with the matching constant speeds from Ishikawa, as applied in
the rejections, “the leading edge of the tucker blade is interpreted to have a
constant speed that is equal to the speed of the first carrier, and therefore a
speed equal to the speed of the conveyed absorbent article,” such that
“[s]ince the speed is constant, the leading edge of the tucker blade is
interpreted to maintain said speed the entire time the leading edge is in
contact with the fold line of the absorbent article.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis
added).
Further, the Examiner is correct to explain in detail how the teaching
of such equal and constant speeds from Ishikawa is sufficient to meet the
scope of the disputed claim limitations. Specifically, with respect to the
speed limitation that recites “portions of the leading edge contacting the fold
line moves at a speed that is at least 0.8 times the first speed,” this recitation
requires only that “the portions of the leading edge contacting the fold line
have a speed that is 0.8 times the first speed or greater,” such that Ishikawa’s
Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

6
“teaching of having the leading edge moving at a speed equal to the first
speed meets the limitation of at least 0.8 times the first speed.” Ans. 3
(italics added). Similarly, with respect to the time limitation that recites “the
leading edge maintains the claimed speed for at least 0.5 times the total time
the leading edge is contacting the fold line,” this recitation requires only that
“the leading edge maintains the claimed speed for 0.5 times the total time or
for a greater amount of time,” such that Ishikawa’s “teaching of having the
leading edge maintain the claimed speed for the entire time the leading edge
is contacting the fold line meets the limitation of at least 0.5 times the total
time.” Id. at 3–4 (italics added). Appellant does not submit a Reply Brief to
contest the Examiner’s explanation for the expansive scope of the disputed
claim terms.2
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellant’s
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusions of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections.

2 We note that, although Appellant’s Figure 9 depicts an acceleration
for the leading edge contact speed (from an initial speed of the tucker blade
at first contact up to a maximum speed that is then maintained), the claim
recitations at issue include only an overall lower bound without any
requirement for a lower initial value or an acceleration up to a higher value,
such that a constant speed throughout (as the Examiner applies in the
combination of teachings from Wiedmann and Ishikawa) falls within the
scope of the claims. See Fig. 9; see also Spec., p. 15, l. 30 – p. 16, l. 14
(describing same).
Appeal 2018-004490
Application 14/273,836

7
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10,
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmann and
Ishikawa.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 8, 9, and
12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmann,
Ishikawa, and LaVon.
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