14660976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

Ex Parte Cataudella et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 23, 2018

14660976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/660,976 03/18/2015 27752 7590 07/25/2018 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthew Corey Cataudella 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. 13752 5693 EXAMINER CHEUNG, CHUN HO! ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3728 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2018 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 MATTHEW COREY CATAUDELLA and JEFFREY ALLEN GREENE Appeal2017-008870 Application 14/660,976 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2017-008870 Application 14/660,976 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a package. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A package comprising: a. a front member, the front member comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface, and a front sealing surface surrounding the second surface; b. a back member, the back member comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface, a back sealing surface surrounding the second surface and a back flange extending from the back sealing surface, the back flange comprising an inward facing surface and an outward facing surface, c. a joint securing the front sealing surface to the back sealing surface; d. a cavity between the second surface of the front member and the second surface of the back member; and e. a ring member positioned adjacent the outward facing surface of the back flange surrounding the back member. REJECTIONS Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Stone (US 2,993,587, issued July 25, 1961) and Tilton (US 8,177,066 B2, issued May 15, 2012). OPINION Appellants present several arguments regarding representative claim 1 (see 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)) alleging that there would not have been a reason or motivation to combine Stone's and Tilton's teachings in the manner proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 3. The fact that Stone already has features for holding the package members together does not, without more, tend to show nonobviousness of using alternate arrangements such as joining, with adhesive, for example, the members proximate the groove 13 2 Appeal2017-008870 Application 14/660,976 (which is interpreted by the Examiner as the respective "sealing surface[s]"). Final Act. 3--4. "[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. . . . A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR Int 'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740--42 (2007) (citations omitted). Stone's failure to teach what Tilton is cited for (App. Br. 3 ("Stone chose not to use adhesive")) is not demonstrative of any error in a rejection under Â§ 103 predicated on the combined teachings of Stone and Tilton. Unlike anticipation, the obviousness inquiry is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed or suggested in any one of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.") ( citation omitted). As the Examiner correctly points out, Tilton's use of adhesive in multiple places is evidence that also weighs heavily against Appellants' argument. Ans. 2 (citing Tilton Fig. 5; col. 10, 11. 50-57.). The Examiner also correctly points out that the weight of evidence is against Appellants' next argument that the use of adhesive would hinder product visibility because Tilton teaches using adhesive on locations outside the region housing the product. Ans. 3--4. Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of any specific knowledge gleaned only through Appellants' own 3 Appeal2017-008870 Application 14/660,976 Specification and, therefore, these arguments do not identify any hindsight relied upon in the Examiner's analysis. The Examiner has thoroughly addressed the issues raised in this appeal and we adopt the Examiner's analysis (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-5) as our own. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F. 3d 1475, 1478 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1994), accord In re Cree, No. 2015-1365 n. 2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2016). DECISION The Examiner's rejection 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4