Ex Parte Fischer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201813659982 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/659,982 10/25/2012 27752 7590 05/31/2018 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Achim Simon Fischer 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. CM3712 9136 EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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 ACHIM SIMON FISCHER and ANNICK ANTOINE SONIA VAN PUT Appeal2017-007766 1 Application 13/659,982 Technology Center 3700 Before KEN B. BARRETT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, The Procter & Gamble Company, the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, is the real party in interest. Br. 1. 2 The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was withdrawn by the Examiner. See Advisory Action dated Mar. 2, 2016. Appeal2017-007766 Application 13/659,982 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosure is directed to "the field of temporary, point of sale, display units and methods of producing, assembling and decorating such units." Spec. 1:5---6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of manufacturing a temporary display unit by sequentially following the steps of: a) Acquiring a blank sheet of display unit material; b) Cutting said blank to make a sheet comprising at least one cut component in a first location; c) Subsequent to cutting said blank, applying indicia to said sheet of cut component; and d) Assembling a temporary display unit that includes said sheet of cut component. Br. 3, Claims App'x. (claim formatting modified). REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by GB 2,420,740 A, published July 6, 2006 (hereinafter "Morrish"). OPINION Appellants argue claims 1-11 as a group. Br. 1-2. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-11 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Morrish discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Morrish discloses a method of manufacturing a temporary display unit. Id. (citing 2 Appeal2017-007766 Application 13/659,982 Morrish p. 1, 11. 3-10). The Examiner finds that Morrish discloses the steps of 1) "[a ]cquiring a blank sheet of display unit material" (citing Morrish Fig. 5, p. 32, 11. 9-14); 2) "[c]utting said blank to make a sheet comprising at least one cut component (insertion elements 19, 21) in a first location" (citing Morrish p. 33, 11. 1-5, 17-22); 3) "[s]ubsequent to cutting said blank, applying indicia to said sheet of cut component" (citing Morrish p. 34, 11. 10-15); and 4) "[a]ssembling a temporary display unit (personalized calendar) that includes said sheet of cut component (insertion elements 19, 21 are assembled with binding 13)." Id. The Examiner explains that "[t]he top sheet of the laminated article includes the removable cut component." Id. (citing Morrish p. 32, 11. 9-14; p. 34, 11. 7-15; p. 17, 1. 22-p. 18, 1. 6; p. 20, 11. 16-19). Appellants contend that Morrish "fails to disclose each limitation" of claim 1. Br. 2. Appellants' argument, however, does not identify errors in the Examiner's findings. Merely stating that a limitation from the claims is missing from the prior art without more does not apprise us of error. Moreover, as quoted supra, the Examiner finds that Morrish discloses the four method steps of the claim 1 including creating a cut component. Accordingly, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. In addition, Appellants argue that Morrish does not disclose a method "wherein only the topsheet of a provided material is cut." Id. In other words, we understand Appellants' argument to be that Morris fails to disclose a cut extending completely through the thickness of both the blank sheet and its backing. Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which merely requires "[ c Jutting said blank to make a sheet 3 Appeal2017-007766 Application 13/659,982 comprising at least one cut component in a first location." Br. 3, Claims App'x. As the Examiner notes, the "[i]nstant claim 1, however, does not recite or even suggest a method wherein the entire thickness of the blank must be cut." Ans. 2. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained and claims 2-11 fall with claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation