Ex Parte Motsch et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2012

11074103 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 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.
11/074,103 03/07/2005 Andreas Peter Motsch 9930Q 8857
27752 7590 05/29/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 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 ANDREAS PETER MOTSCH,
BEATE CHRISTINE JANIK,
and MARTIN WERNER FRANK
____________

Appeal 2011-001309
Application 11/074,103
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 7-22 (App. Br. 2).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a multi-presentational package. Claim 7 is
representative and is reproduced in the “CLAIMS APPENDIX” of
Appellants’ Brief.
Appeal 2011-001309
Application 11/074,103

2
Claims 7-9 and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of McQueeny1 and Underhill.2
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of McQueeny, Underhill, and Kuske.3
We reverse.

ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support a
conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. For clarity, Appellants’ Figs. 1 and 3A are reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an exemplary multi-presentational package
of disposable diapers in accordance with . . . [Appellants’] invention” (Spec.
4: 8-9). “Fig. 3[A] is a perspective view of an exemplary individual-
package of disposable diapers having been removed from the multi-
presentational package from FIG. 1” (id. at 12-13).

1 McQueeny et al., US 5,361,905, issued November 8, 1994.
2 Underhill et al., US 6,884,238 B2, issued April 26, 2005.
3 Kuske et al., US 6,318,555 B1, issued November 20, 2001.
Appeal 2011-001309
Application 11/074,103

3
FF 2. According to Appellants’ Specification the “multi-presentational
package 1000 may comprise . . . stabilizers (herein[] 100, 200, 300, 400),”
wherein “stabilizer 100 is shown having a front panel 103, a bottom panel
120 and rear panel 130” (Spec. 7: 6-9).
FF 3. McQueeny suggests a multi-presentational package that comprises,
inter alia, reinforcement sections (e.g., stabilizers) that “may, for example,
be provided by patches of additional material which help maintain the
secured integrity between . . . supplemental strap sections and subpackages”
(McQueeny, col. 11, l. 67 - col. 12, l. 5; Ans. 4-5).
FF 4. Examiner finds that McQueeny’s reinforcement sections are “three-
dimensional structure[s],” more specifically they are a “‘patch’ of material
[that] has a front panel (outer surface), back panel (inner surface) and bottom
panel (bottom of material) as broadly as [Appellants] claimed” (Ans. 7).
FF 5. Examiner relies on Underhill to suggest disposable articles, wherein
“information is conveyed to the consumer in the packaging” (id. at 5).
FF 6. Examiner relies on Kuske to suggest “absorbent article packaging
where the articles are visible to a user” (id. at 7).
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ claimed invention requires, inter alia, a plurality of
stabilizers, wherein each of the stabilizers includes a front panel, a bottom
panel, and a rear panel” (see e.g., Claim 7). Examiner reasons that
McQueeny’s reinforcement sections, i.e. patches, read on the stabilizers of
Appellants’ claimed invention because Appellants’ claims do “not require
that the panels be separate panels or that the material cover the entire side of
the package” (Ans. 7-8; see FF 3-4). We are not persuaded. Instead, we
Appeal 2011-001309
Application 11/074,103

4
agree with Appellants’ contention that “[a]n edge of a piece of flat material
cannot reasonably be considered a ‘panel’” (App. Br. 5; Cf. FF 1-2).
Underhill and Kuske fail to make up for the foregoing deficiency in
McQueeny (id. at 5-6; see FF 5-6).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support a
conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 7-9 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of McQueeny and Underhill is reversed.
The rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of McQueeny, Underhill, and Kuske is
reversed.
REVERSED

dm