The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2020

14594195 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2020)

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.
14/594,195 01/12/2015 Alan David Willey 13062 8878
27752 7590 06/18/2020
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KHAN, AMINA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2020 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 ALAN DAVID WILEY, ROBB RICHARD GARDNER, and
KADY LYNN WILLISON
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 13–18.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Proctor &
Gamble Company. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Pending claim 12 is not before us on appeal because the Examiner has
withdrawn this claim from consideration. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

2
We AFFIRM.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a method of treating laundry by including a
photoactive component in a treatment composition that is added to the
laundry and irradiating the treatment composition with visible light. Spec. 3:
8–11. Appellant discloses that although washing machine appliances may be
manufactured with interior lights, it is unlikely that consumers will purchase
such new appliances merely to take advantage of a detergent employing
photoactive chemistry. Id. at 2:13–19. Therefore, Appellant discloses that
the method of treating laundry includes providing a source of visible light
that is tool-free attachable to and detachable from an interior portion of a
washing machine appliance. Id. at 3:11–13.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for treating laundry comprising the steps of:
providing a treatment composition comprising a
photoactivator and a benefit active precursor comprising an
oxyhalite;
contacting in an appliance said treatment composition
with said laundry; and
irradiating said treatment composition with visible light;
wherein the step of irradiating said treatment composition
with visible light is performed with a source of light that is tool

3 This Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 12, 2015,
the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November 13, 2018, and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated March 27, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

3
free attachable to and detachable from an interior portion of
said appliance.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Benjamin et al.
(“Benjamin”)
US 3,635,828 Jan. 18, 1972
Speakman US 3,916,652 Nov. 04, 1975
Speakman
(“Speakman2”)
US 3,927,967 Dec. 23, 1975
Hollander US 7,081,225 B1 July 25, 2006
Schrott US 2011/0180118 A1 July 28, 2011
Batchelor et al.
(“Batchelor”)
US 2012/0093905 A1 Apr. 19, 2012
Smets et al. (“Smets”) WO 2006/055787 A1 May 26, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13–18 as unpatentable over
Speakman in view of Hollander, Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor;
2. Claims 5 and 7–9 as unpatentable over Speakman in view of
Hollander, Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor, and further in view of
Speakman2; and
3. Claim 4 as unpatentable over Speakman in view of Hollander,
Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor, and further in view of Schrott.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

4
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections. We offer the following for
emphasis only.
Appellant argues claim 1 only, and does not otherwise argue either the
claims or the rejections separately. We, therefore, decide the appeal as to all
grounds of rejection based on the arguments made in support of patentability
of claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Speakman teaches a method of treating
laundry comprising adding a treatment composition including a
photoactivator to laundry and irradiating the laundry with visible light with a
light source that may be attached to the cabinet or the rotating drum of the
washing machine. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Speakman fails to teach
that the light source is tool-free attachable and detachable from an interior
portion of the machine and that the treatment composition further includes
an oxyhalite. Id. However, the Examiner finds that Hollander teaches a tool-
free attachable and detachable means, i.e., a clip, for mounting a light source
for irradiating laundry to an interior portion of a washing machine. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
Speakman to tool-free attach and detach the light source to the washing
machine by a clip because Hollander teaches that this is an effective
arrangement for attaching a light source to an existing washing machine for
irradiating laundry in the machine. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

5
With regard to the second feature missing from Speakman, the
Examiner finds that Benjamin teaches laundry detergents conventionally
include enzymes, oxygen sources for enzymes, and enzymatic catalysts such
as sodium chlorite. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide enzymes and sodium chlorite, an oxyhalite, to
Speakman’s treatment composition in order to enhance enzymatic activity
and detergency as taught in Benjamin. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to add Benjamin’s
enzyme catalyst to Speakman’s treatment composition because Speakman
neither requires nor discloses enzyme-containing compositions. Appeal Br.
3. Appellant contends that neither Speakman nor Benjamin teaches nor
suggests combining a photoactivator and a benefit active precursor material,
e.g., sodium chlorite, for generating chlorine dioxide when used in a laundry
treating method. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they fail to address the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to include both an enzyme and an enzyme catalyst, e.g., sodium
chlorite, in Speakman’s treatment composition. Thus, although Speakman
fails to teach an enzyme-containing composition, the rejection relies on
including both the enzyme and the enzyme catalyst based on Benjamin’s
teaching that such components are conventionally included in laundry
treatment compositions. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ
1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (“It is prima facie obvious to combine two
compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the
same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

6
the very same purpose. . . . [T]he idea of combining them flows logically
from their having been individually taught in the prior art.”)
In addition, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 8), claim 1 does not require
that chlorine dioxide be generated during the process. See In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting appellants’ nonobviousness
argument as based on limitation not recited in claim); In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on
limitations appearing in the claims.”). The Examiner also finds that the
combination of Speakman and Benjamin necessarily would result in the
generation of chlorine dioxide because Speakman’s modified treatment
composition would include both a photoactivator and an oxyhalite. Ans. 8.
Because this finding is reasonable, and Appellant does not challenge it, we
accept it as fact. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964).
Appellant does not otherwise challenge the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as
well as the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3–11 and
13–18.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for reasons given above and in
the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11,
and 13–18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
More specifically,
the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13–18 as unpatentable
over Speakman in view of Hollander, Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor is
affirmed;
Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

7
the rejection of claims 5 and 7–9 as unpatentable over Speakman in
view of Hollander, Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor, and further in view of
Speakman2, is affirmed; and
the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Speakman in view of
Hollander, Benjamin, Smets, and Batchelor, and further in view of Schrott,
is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6,
10, 11, 13–
18
103 Speakman,
Hollander,
Benjamin, Smets,
Batchelor
1, 3, 5, 6,
10, 11, 13–
18

5, 7–9 103 Speakman,
Hollander,
Benjamin, Smets,
Batchelor,
Speakman2
5, 7–9
4 103 Speakman,
Hollander,
Benjamin, Smets,
Batchelor, Schrott
4
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–
18

Appeal 2019-004674
Application 14/594,195

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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