Ex Parte Hernandez-Munoa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

10837961 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/837,961 05/03/2004 Diego Antonio Hernandez-Munoa 9575 3889
27752 7590 02/29/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
CORDRAY, DENNIS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2012 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 DIEGO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-MUNOA
____________

Appeal 2010-002674
Application 10/837,961
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined prior art of Schroeder (US 6,503,412 B1, issued
Jan. 7, 2003), Masschelein et al. (US 2002/0103094 A1, pub. Aug. 1, 2002),
and Syverson et al. (US 5,580,566, issued Dec. 3, 1996).1

1 Appellant does not separately argue any of the claims, and rely upon the
same argument for each of the independent claims 1 and 18. Br. 8-10. 

Appeal 2010-002674
Application 10/837,961

2
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact (Ans. 3-5), the
preponderance of which support the obviousness rejection and the
conclusion of law articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant’s sole argument is that Syverson teaches away from the use
of cationic silicone polymers such as those of Masschelein for softening
tissues (Br. 8-10). Notably, there is no dispute that Schroeder uses cationic
silicone polymers to soften tissues (generally Br.). Whether a reference
teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact. In re Harris,
409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellant’s argument is unavailing
based on the facts and reasons aptly pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7;
no responsive Brief has been filed; see also Final Rejection 3-4).
The decision of the Examiner 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).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

cam