Ex Parte Langdon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14298122 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/298,122 06/06/2014
27752 7590 09/20/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frederick Michael Langdon
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.
13401 1728
EXAMINER
VASAT,PETERS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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 FREDERICK MICHAEL LANGDON
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298,122
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is The Procter & Gamble Company of
Cincinnati, Ohio." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellant, "[ a ]11 of the pending claims currently on
appeal pertain to absorbent articles such as feminine sanitary napkins,
pantiliners, and adult incontinence products." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. An absorbent article, having a longitudinal axis, a
lateral axis extending generally perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis, and a vertical axis extending generally
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the lateral
axis, the absorbent article further comprising:
a chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an
absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and
the backsheet, the chassis having a body-facing
surface and an outer-facing surface;
a pair of side flaps each having a first surface and a
second surface opposite the first surface and each
further comprising attached areas and free ends,
wherein the attached area of each side flap is attached
to the chassis such that a portion of the first surface
of each side flap is attached to the outer-facing
surface of the chassis, wherein an adhesive is
disposed on a portion of the first surface of each of
the side flaps adjacent the free end; and
a release liner covering at least a portion of the adhesive
on the first surface of each of the side flaps, the
release liner and the free ends of each of the side
flaps being disposed superjacent to the chassis when
the absorbent article is in an unfolded state and
oriented where the topsheet is positioned superjacent
to the absorbent core.
2 This claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix accompanying the Appeal
Brief.
2
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
Mills376
Taylor
Mills592
Harriz
Brisebois
References3
us 6,074,376
US 6,358,233 B 1
US 2002/0052592 Al
US 2003/0060792 Al
US 2005/0124958 Al
Rejections
June 13, 2000
Mar. 19, 2002
May 2, 2002
Mar. 27, 2003
June 9, 2005
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois and Mills376. (Final
Action 3.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 9, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, and Mills592. (Final
Action 10.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, and Harriz. (Final Action 14.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, and Taylor. (Final Action 15.)
V. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, Mills592, and Taylor. (Final
Action 17.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal, with the
rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-19) depending directly
or ultimately therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
3 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/or italicization of drawing-associated numerals.
3
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite "[a]n absorbent article"
comprising "a chassis" (having "a topsheet," "a backsheet," and "an
absorbent core"), "a pair of side flaps," "an adhesive" disposed on each side
flap adjacent its "free end," and "a release liner" covering "at least a portion
of the adhesive." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1, 11,
and 20 further require the release liner and the flaps' free ends to be
"disposed superjacent to the chassis" and "oriented where the topsheet is
positioned superjacent to the absorbent core." (Id.)
The Examiner finds that the prior art discloses an absorbent article
comprising a chassis (i.e., a topsheet, a backsheet, an absorbent core), a pair
of side flaps, adhesive disposed on the flaps' free ends, and a release liner
covering at least a portion of the adhesive. (See Final Action 2-3.)
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Brisebois discloses an
absorbent article, namely a sanitary napkin, which comprises a chassis (i.e.,
a topsheet 56, a backsheet 58, an absorbent core 60), side flaps 34 and 36,
adhesive fasteners 68 disposed on the flaps' free ends, and release liners 71
covering the adhesive fasteners 68. (See Final Action 2-3.) The relevant
components of this prior art sanitary napkin are accentuated in our below
annotated version of Brisebois's Figure 3A.
adhesive 68 adhesive 68
side flap 34 side fli:tJl 3(:i
4
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
In the orientation shown in the above annotated drawing, the upper side of
Brisebois' s chassis is formed by the backsheet 5 8 and the lower side of the
chassis is formed by the topsheet 56. The free ends of the side flaps 34/36
are shown situated over the backsheet 58.
If Brisebois's side flaps 34/36 were instead situated over the
topsheet 56, the flaps' free ends would be disposed superjacent to the chassis
and oriented where the topsheet 56 is positioned superjacent to the absorbent
core 60. However, Brisebois indicates that its sanitary napkin 20 "[is]
structured such that it can be manufactured with considerably less waste as
compared to conventional napkins." (Brisebois ,r 6.) And it is plausible that
the positioning of the side flaps 34/36 over the backsheet 58, as opposed to
the topsheet 56, accommodates Brisebois's preferred method of
manufacture. (See id., ,r,r 69, 88-91, Figs. 13-14.)
The Examiner also finds that Mills376 teaches an absorbent article,
namely a sanitary napkin, which comprises a chassis (i.e., a topsheet 38, a
backsheet 40, an absorbent core 42), a pair of side flaps 24, adhesives 68
disposed on the flaps' free ends, and release liners 71 covering the
adhesives 68. (See Final Action 4--5.) The relevant components of this prior
art sanitary napkin are accentuated in our below annotated version of
Mills376's Figure 2A.
backshct~t 40
side flap 24 side fla ll 24
5
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
In the orientation shown in the above annotated drawing, the upper side of
Mills376's chassis is formed by the backsheet 40 and its lower side is
formed by the topsheet 38. The free ends of the side flaps 24, and the
adhesive patches 76 disposed thereon, are disposed superjacent to the chassis
and oriented where the topsheet 38 is positioned superjacent to the absorbent
core 42.
Although not shown in the above drawing, a flap adhesive cover 84
(i.e., a release liner) "covers and protects the flap adhesives 76." (Mills376,
col. 9, 11. 5---6, see also Fig. 7 .) The flap adhesive cover 84 is part of a
wrapper construction which, according to Mills376, provides "less
expensive packaging," prevents "excess litter," and allows "easy placement
of the absorbent article in an undergarment." (Id. at col. 4, 11. 7-17 see also
Figs. 4, 5.)
Thus, the prior art teaches: 1) a sanitary napkin in which side flaps
are situated over the chassis backsheet to possibly accommodate a preferred
manufacturing method; and 2) a sanitary napkin in which side flaps are
situated over the chassis topsheet to allow an advantageous wrapper
construction.
As indicated above, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 require the
release liner and the flaps' free ends to be "disposed superjacent to the
chassis" and "oriented where the topsheet is positioned superjacent to the
absorbent core." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In other words, independent
claims 1, 11, and 20 require the flaps' free ends to be positioned as shown
above in Mills376's sanitary napkin.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of
the teachings of Mills3 7 6, to modify Brisebois' s sanitary napkin to re-orient
6
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
its side flaps over its topsheet. (See Final Action 5.) And the Examiner
explains that this modification would be done "to provide a wrapper for an
individual absorbent article that has flaps having fasteners thereon." (Id.)
The Appellant argues that "the base combination from which all the
obviousness rejections spring," i.e., Brisebois in view of Mills376, "is
flawed." (Appeal Br. 9.) According to the Appellant, the Examiner's
proposed re-orienting of the Brisebois's side flaps 34/36, "would require a
major redesign of Brisebois, particularly on the process side." (Id. at 7.)
Also, according to the Appellant, the Examiner's proposed re-orienting of
Brisebois's side flaps 34/36 "would require the disclosed process of
Brisebois to be modified" and, therefore, "would require a change in the
principle of operation of Brisebois." (Id. at 7-8.) The Appellant
additionally contends that "the processes taught by Brisebois" are "unable to
achieve the configuration of Mills." (Id. at 7.)
The problem with the Appellant's arguments is that they are premised,
primarily, upon one of ordinary skill being restricted to Brisebois' s preferred
method of manufacture when considering possible side-flap orientations for
an absorbent article. However, as pointed out by the Examiner, "the claims
at issue are directed to an absorbent article rather than a method of making
an absorbent article." (Answer 2.) And the Appellant does not assert that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make the Examiner's
proposed modified version of Brisebois' s sanitary napkin using another
manufacturing method. Indeed, as implicated by the Appellant, the side
flaps of Brisebois's sanitary napkin could be "folded over" the topsheet 56
and release paper could be provided to "cover an adhesive fastener 68."
(Appeal Br. 7 .)
7
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
Here, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art, seeking
to provide Brisebois' s sanitary napkin with an advantageous wrapper
structure, would look to Mills376's teachings and modify Brisebois's
sanitary napkin accordingly. We see no assertion in the record that this
modification could not result in a sanitary napkin having an advantageous
wrapper structure. We also see no contention in the record that the
Examiner incorrectly finds that the modified version of Brisebois' s sanitary
napkin would still "attach to the wearer's undergarment with adhesive" and
still "absorb[] bodily fluids while secured to the wearer's undergarment."
(Answer 4.) Put another way, the Appellant does not dispute that the
Examiner's proposed modification would not render Brisebois's sanitary
napkin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of
operation.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois and Mills376
(Rejection I); and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376,
and Mills592 (Rejection II). 4
As for the dependent claims, the Appellant does not argue them
separately, other than to say that "[t]he additions" of Mills592, Taylor, and
Harriz "do not rectify the outages identified above." (Appeal Br. 9.) Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6--8, 11,
4 With respect to independent claim 20, the Appellant only additionally
argues that the addition of Mills592 "does not rectify" the above-discussed
alleged shortcomings of the Examiner's combination of Brisebois and
Mills376. (Appeal Br. 8.)
8
Appeal2017-010217
Application 14/298, 122
and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois and
Mills376 (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 3, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois,
Mills376, and Mills592 (Rejection II); we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claim 5 as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, and Harriz
(Rejection III); we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376, and
Taylor (Rejection IV); and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brisebois, Mills376,
Mills592, and Taylor (Rejection V).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
9