Ex Parte DENOME et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 201914071024 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/071,024 11/04/2013 27752 7590 03/28/2019 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank William DENOME 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. 10813RC3 2150 EXAMINER BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EV A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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 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 FRANK WILLIAM DENOME, TANIA EDMEE BERGES CABRERA, ERROL HOFFMAN WAHL, JODI LEE BROWN, RENAE DIANNA FOSSUM, VINCENZO CAT ALF AMO, YON AS GIZA W, and LOIS JEAN BOEKLEY 1 Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 Technology Center 1600 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-14, 16, 18-20, and 22 as unpatentable over Ranada (WO 2004/020566 Al; March 11, 2004) in view of Schilling (US 4,234,627; Nov. 18, 1980) as evidenced by Morgan (US 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Procter & Gamble Company, which is identified as the real party in interest (Br. 1 ). Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 2005/0192207 Al; Sept. 1, 2005) and claim 21 (as well as claims 1-14, 16, 18-20, and 22) as unpatentable over these references in combination with Wood (US 4,294,855; Oct. 13, 1981). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a functionalized substrate comprising a composition susceptible to aqueous attack, water insoluble friable microcapsules encapsulating perfume, and neat perfume, wherein the functionalized substrate is prepared in the form of small pieces as a stand alone product (independent claim 1; see also remaining independent claims 4, 16, and 22). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. An article comprising: a. a functionalized substrate comprising: i. a composition susceptible to aqueous attack, wherein said composition is selected from water-soluble materials, partially water soluble materials, water-dispersible materials, water-disintegrating materials, and mixtures thereof; ii. about 1 %, to about 95% by weight of said functionalized substrate of water insoluble friable microcapsules each of which encapsulate a functional composition, wherein said microcapsules are incorporated in said functionalized substrate, wherein said functional composition comprises a perfume; and iii. neat perfume; wherein said microcapsules have a diameter less than about 300 microns; wherein said microcapsules are dispersed throughout said 2 Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 functionalized substrate; and wherein the functionalized substrate is prepared in the form of small pieces having a maximum linear dimension of from about 1 to about 20 mm as a stand alone product. Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection (see Br. 5-8). Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims, of which claim 1 is representative. We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action, the Examiner's Answer, and below. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ranada discloses perfume film chips (i.e., functionalized substrates) containing perfume particles such as perfume encapsulated in water insoluble microcapsules, perfume loaded into or onto (i.e., held on) porous carriers, and mixtures thereof (Final Action 3-7). The Examiner interprets Appellant's claimed "neat perfume" as being the same as Appellant's disclosed "free perfume" (i.e., "free perfume is not encapsulated and is instead incorporated within the functionalized substrate" (Spec. 18:19-23)) (Final Action 7). The Examiner finds that such "free perfume" includes the non-encapsulated perfume held on Ranada's carriers (id.). 2 2 The Examiner presented this finding previously in Appeal 2013-002955 of Appellant's parent Application 11/895, 602. In our prior Decision dated October 23, 2015 for that Appeal, we agreed with the Examiner's finding, noting Appellant had identified no error therein (Dec. 3--4). 3 Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Ranada's perfume film chips (i.e., functionalized substrates) with the combination of perfume held on porous carriers (i.e., neat or free perfume) as well as perfume encapsulated in microcapsules "since Ranada ... suggest[ s] that its perfume may be held on the carrier material as well as encapsulated" (id.). 3 As for the "stand alone product" limitation of claim 1, the Examiner determines that the "comprising" claim language allows Ranada's perfume film chips to be part of a cleaning composition as disclosed by Ranada (id. at 11-12) and that Ranada's chips are "capable of acting as a stand alone product" ( id. at 12). Appellant points out that Ranada' s perfume film chips are "used in cleaning compositions" and argues that Ranada "does not disclose or even contemplate providing the perfume film chips disclosed therein as a stand alone product as claimed" (Br. 5). Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's determination that the perfume film chips of Ranada are capable of acting as a stand alone product. For example, Appellant fails to explain why the perfume film chips, at a point between their manufacture and their combination with a 3 Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's proposed combination of Ranada with the other applied references (see Br. 5-8). Accordingly, we need not address these proposed combinations in our disposition of this appeal. 4 Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 cleaning composition, do not satisfy the stand alone product limitation. Such an explanation is necessary because Appellant offers no definition of the claim phrase "stand alone product" whereas, prior to being combined with a cleaning composition (e.g., during storage), Ranada's chips constitute a product that stands alone (i.e., by itself). For these reasons, the argument does not show error in the Examiner's determination that the perfume film chips of Ranada satisfy the "stand alone product" limitation of claim 1. Appellant also argues that the Examiner erroneously interprets the claimed "neat perfume" to be the same as "free perfume" (i.e., a non- encapsulated perfume such as the perfume held on Ranada's carriers) (id. at 6). As above, Appellant offers no definition of the claim phrase "neat perfume" and no meaningful explanation why the Examiner erred by interpreting "neat perfume" to be the same as "free perfume" or why the Examiner erred in finding the non-encapsulated perfume held on Ranada's carriers to constitute a free or neat perfume. In this latter regard, we observe that Appellant misperceives the Examiner's rejection as proposing "one skilled in the art would just skip all together the perfume particle carrier material [ of Ranada] and place the neat perfume in the [perfume] film [ chips of Ranada]" (id.). In fact, as previously indicated, the Examiner proposes combining Ranada's perfume held on carriers with Ranada's encapsulated perfume "since Ranada ... suggest[ s] that its perfume may be held on the carrier material as well as encapsulated" (Final Action 7). 5 Appeal2018-003050 Application 14/071,024 Finally, Appellant argues that "[t]o provide neat perfume, as claimed, is directly against the teaching of Ranada ... which states that such perfume should be avoided to minimize intense product odor due to evolving volatile perfume ingredients" (Br. 7). Once again, Appellant misperceives the Examiner's rejection as providing Ranada's perfume film chips with non-encapsulated perfume by itself rather than with non-encapsulated perfume held on carriers as proposed by the Examiner. As the Examiner correctly finds in the rejection (Final Action 4) and reiterates in the Answer (Ans. 6), Ranada discloses that "the perfume film chips effectively entraps the perfume material loaded into or onto the particle carrier" (Ranada 3:16-19; see also id. at 2:29-30 ("perfume loaded in and/or on to carriers can be effectively protected from premature release of perfume")). This disclosure supports, rather than teaches away from, providing the perfume film chips with non-encapsulated perfume held on carriers as proposed in the rejection. For the above-stated reasons and those given by the Examiner, Appellant fails to reveal error in the § 103 rejections of the claims on appeal. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation