Ex Parte Larsson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

12809635 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/809,635 06/21/2010
105718 7590 07/23/2018
SCA Hygiene Products AB
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bjorn Larsson
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.
1018798-000675 9781
EXAMINER
PETERSON, KENNETH E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BJORN LARSSON 1
Appeal2016-006424
Application 12/809,635
Technology Center 3700
Before: NEIL T. POWELL, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 20, 22, 23, 33, 35, and 36. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief indicates that SCA Hygiene Products AB is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 An oral hearing was conducted on July 3, 2018.
Appeal2016-006424
Application 12/809,635
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hands-free paper towel dispenser. Claim
20, reproduced below with emphasis and numbering added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
20. A hands-free paper towel dispenser, comprising:
[i.] a housing for holding a continuous web of towels, said
housing comprising an outer front wall and two outer side walls,
said outer front wall comprising a dispensing opening for the web
of towels adjacent a lower edge of the dispensing opening;
[ii.] a drive unit;
[iii.] a cutting element for the web of towels;
[iv.] at least one sensor for controlling the dispensing of a
towel; and
[ v.] a microprocessor for controlling the drive unit in
response to signals from said at least one sensor, wherein a first
sensor of the at least one sensor is arranged above the dispensing
opening to sense the presence of a user, and the microprocessor
is configured to:
[vi.] activate the drive unit to dispense a predetermined
length of web in order to displace a leading edge of the web of
towels to a first position in which the predetermined length of
web is arranged to be cut by the cutting element when the
predetermined length of web is removed by the user to create a
new leading edge of the web of towels, and
[vii.] activate the drive unit after the predetermined
length of web has been removed to position the new leading edge
of the web of towels in a second position, different than the first
position, inside the dispensing opening, and in said second
position at least a portion of the new leading edge of the web of
towels is visible to the user in a cut-out section of the lower edge
of the outer front wall.
2
Appeal2016-006424
Application 12/809,635
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Honschopp
Gillam
DesRosiers
Kling
us 1,693,338
us 2,984,397
US 2007 /0137454 Al
WO 2006/071148 Al
Nov. 27, 1928
May 16, 1961
June 21, 2007
July 6, 2006
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 20, 22, 23, 33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kling, Honschopp, DesRosiers, Gillam, and
official notice.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Kling discloses all of the features recited in
claim 20, except for a cutout in the housing and the recited location of the
starting sensor. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on official notice and the
teachings of Honschopp, Gillam, and DesRosiers to remedy these
deficiencies. Id. at4-5 (citinginreJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)
and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). With respect to requirement vii of claim 20,
the Examiner finds that Kling teaches a microprocessor that controls the
feeding means to move a web of paper towel "to a second, visible position
( called the 'starting mode 13' in the middle paragraph of page 15)" after
removal of the paper towel by a user. Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends that a preponderance of the evidence does not
support a finding that starting mode 13 of Kling corresponds to the second
position recited in claim 20. Appeal Br. 5-11. Appellant contends that, in
one embodiment, Kling moves a web of towels such that the web projects
from dispensing opening 9 after a towel has been cut off. Id. at 6 ( citing
3
Appeal2016-006424
Application 12/809,635
Kling, 15: 10-16). Appellant contends this embodiment in Kling fails to
satisfy the requirements of claim 20 because the end of the towel is not
"inside the dispensing opening," as recited. Id. at 6-7. Appellant contends
that, in a second embodiment disclosed by Kling, the feeding mechanism
moves the web into a position ready for removal (tearing off) by the user,
but "[t]he feeding mechanism 10 does not move the web again until the
presence of a user is detected once more, and the same process is repeated."
Id. at 7. In other words, according to Appellant, in the second embodiment
disclosed by Kling, "[t]here is no separate, second movement of the web to a
starting mode 13 inside the dispensing opening 9." Id.
In response, the Examiner refers to the last sentence of the Abstract in
Kling, which states, "[t]he web of towels is dispensable from the upper part
of the pile by feeding mechanism, which positions the web of towels in a
starting mode in the dispensing opening." Ans. 6 ( emphasis omitted) ( citing
Kling, Abstract). The Examiner characterizes the last sentence of the
Abstract of Kling as an "explicit statement that there is a second
advancement step." Id. at 7 ( emphasis added).
The middle paragraph of page 15 of Kling expands on the disclosure
from the Abstract and states, in pertinent part:
The braking arrangement 12 is arranged so that it does not allow
the web of towels to go backwards during normal operation. The
braking arrangement also positions the web of towels in a starting
mode 13 in the dispensing opening 9. A tearing edge or a cutting
member is situated in close proximity of the dispensing opening.
A portion of the web could preferably be left projecting a little
bit from the dispensing opening 9 after the part of the web fed
out has been torn or cut off Alternatively, the web of towels in
the starting mode 13 could be entirely inside the dispenser and
the dispensing unit 1, in these cases it is preferred either to have
some part above the dispensing opening 9 somewhat transparent
4
Appeal2016-006424
Application 12/809,635
such that at least a part of the web of towels can be seen from the
outside of the dispenser.
Kling, 15: 10-20 ( emphasis added). Thus, after the part of the web that is
moved outward for the user has been tom or cut off, a portion of the web
may be left (allowed to remain) projecting from the dispensing opening.
This is the only teaching in this reference that directly addresses what
happens after a part of the web is tom off.
We do not find that this teaching from Kling, along with the portion of
the Abstract in Kling referred to the by Examiner, supports a finding that
Kling moves the web to a "second" position after removal of a towel by a
user as recited by claim 20, as relied upon by the Examiner. Nor do we find
that the other portions of Kling cited by the examiner adequately support
such a finding. Accordingly, on the record before us, the Examiner falls
short of supporting by a preponderance of the evidence the finding that
Kling discloses the elements of requirement vii of claim 20. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 20, and claims 22, 23, 33, 35, and 36, which
require all the elements of claim 20, 3 as unpatentable over Kling, official
notice, Honschopp, DesRosiers, and Gillam.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 20, 22, 23, 33, 35, and 36 is
reversed.
REVERSED
3 Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 20, and claims 33, 35, and 36 are
method claims that incorporate the elements of claim 20 by reference.
5