Ex Parte Digiacomantonio et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2012

10795371 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

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.
10/795,371 03/08/2004 Marco Digiacomantonio CM2602C 9357
27752 7590 05/16/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MARCETICH, ADAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MARCO DIGIACOMANTONIO, CARLO TORO,
GIOVANNI CARLUCCI, and REMO BELLUCCI
__________

Appeal 2011-001710
Application 10/795,371
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2011-001710
Application 10/795,371

2
The claims are drawn to a color printed liquid permeable laminated
structure, and a disposable absorbent article incorporating that structure, and
may be found in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-7).
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Makoui
1

and McFarland
2
(Ans. 4).
II. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Makoui and McFarland as
further combined with Yeo
3
(Ans. 8).
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered
obvious by the combination of Makoui and McFarland as further
combined with Uitenbroek
4
(Ans. 8).
We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellants’ arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. Specifically, Makoui teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1 for use in a disposable absorbent article such as a
sanitary napkin, except for the first layer being color printed with an ink on
at least one of its surfaces. McFarland teaches a printed sanitary paper
product comprising a water based ink. We thus agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to use the ink of

1
Makoui et al., US 6,127,595, issued Oct. 3, 2000.
2
McFarland et al., US 6,096,412, issued Aug. 1, 2000.
3
Yeo, US 5,503,076, issued Apr. 2, 1996.
4
Uitenbroek et al., US 5,897,541, issued Apr. 27, 1999.
Appeal 2011-001710
Application 10/795,371

3
McFarland in the liquid permeable laminated structure of Makoui to mask
body waste (Ans. 4-5).
We have considered Appellants’ argument that incorporating the ink
in the adhesive binder of Makoui would defeat the improvement in bonding
taught by that reference (App. Br. 3), but Appellants present no evidence to
that effect, and attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence lacking
in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, and not refuted by
Appellants, while the ink may not increase the binding between the layers,
there is no evidence that it would prevent effective binding between the
layers (Ans. 10).
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

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).

AFFIRMED

alw