Ex Parte Polat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2019

14704135 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/704,135 05/05/2015
27752 7590 01/15/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Osman Polat
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.
10361MC2 7951
EXAMINER
SALVA TORE, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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 OSMAN POLAT, DEAN VAN PHAN,
PAUL DENNIS TROKHAN,
KEMAL VATANSEVERCATALAN,
and ALAN HOW ARD ULLMAN
Appeal2018-002018
Application 14/704,135
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LILAN REN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (The Procter & Gamble Company) appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claims are to a method for making a fibrous substrate. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for making a fibrous substrate, the method
compnsmg:
Appeal2018-002018
Application 14/704,135
depositing from a headbox onto a F ourdrinier wire a
slurry comprising cellulosic fibers, from 10% to 30% synthetic
fibers, and from 40 ppm to about 50 ppm of a hydrophilizing
agent to form an embryonic web,
de-watering the embryonic web to form a web having a
consistency of at least 50% consistency;
adhering the web to a surface of a Yankee dryer; and
creping the web off of the Yankee dryer after the web
reaches a consistency of at least 90%: and,
wherein after washing with water according to the
Method for Durability of Association of Hydrophilizing Agent
and Synthetic Fibers herein, the contact angle of
water on the synthetic fibers is less than 70 degrees.
Harmon
Manning
Trokhan
Marsh
The References
us 3,794,557
us 5,094,717
us 5,840,403
US 2003/0203195 Al
The Rejections
Feb.26, 1974
Mar. 10, 1992
Nov. 24, 1998
Oct. 30, 2003
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1 and 3---6 over Harman in view of Marsh, claim 2 over Harman in
view of Marsh and Manning, and claim 7 over Harman in view of Marsh and
Trokhan.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
Although the Examiner applies additional references when rejecting
claims 2 and 7, the Appellant argues the claims as a group (Br. 3--4). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim. Claims 2-7 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
2
Appeal2018-002018
Application 14/704,135
Hannon makes a fibrous web containing textile length rayon fibers by
adding a dispersing agent then textile length rayon fibers to an aqueous
medium followed by moderate stirring and mild agitation, thereby dispersing
the textile length rayon fibers with minimal fiber flocculation and clumping
(col. 3, 11. 38--48). The dispersing agent can be polyethylene oxide (which is
one of the Appellant's hydrophilizing agents (Spec. 19:19--21)) and is
present in an amount of about 1 to about 200 ppm (col. 4, 11. 20-21, 35-38).
The dispersing agent is very water soluble and hydrophilic, associates with
water to form a viscous aqueous solution, and coats the fiber surfaces to
make them slippery, thereby deterring the formation of clumps, tangles, and
bundles (col. 4, 11. 1-3, 10-15). The textile length rayon fibers can be
blended with up to 99% natural fibers such as cellulosic fibers or synthetic
fibers such as polyamide or polyester fibers (which are among the
Appellant's synthetic fibers (Spec. 8:33-34)) ( col. 5, 11. 39---63).
Marsh makes tissue and towel products containing crosslinked
cellulosic fibers using an apparatus comprising a head box (10), Fourdrinier
wire (20) through which a papermaking furnish is dewatered to produce an
embryonic web ( 40), a vacuum dewatering box ( 66), predryers ( 68), and a
Yankee dryer (70) from which the web is dry creped (Abstract, ,r 93; Fig. 3).
The Appellant asserts that "[ t ]he hydrophilic dispersing agent of
Harmon is focused on the treatment of aqueous media combined with rayon
fibers and not synthetic fibers" (Br. 3).
Harmon discloses that as much as 99% of the fibers can be non-rayon
fibers such as cellulosic or synthetic fibers (col. 5, 11. 39---63).
The Appellant asserts that "Appellant's hydrophilizing agent is taught
for inclusion because the association of the hydrophilizing agent with
3
Appeal2018-002018
Application 14/704,135
synthetic fibers enables the synthetic fibers to display hydrophilic
characteristics which in tum allow the typical generally hydrophobic nature
of synthetic fibers to be overcome" (Br. 2).
That argument is not well taken because it is directed toward a
limitation which is not in the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCP A 1982) ("[ A Jppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ...
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). Moreover, the
Appellant's Specification merely states that "it is surmised that the
hydrophilizing agent becomes associated with one or more surfaces of the
hydrophobic synthetic fiber" (Spec. 17:24--25).
The Appellant asserts that the hydrophilizing agent "allows for the
dispersion of such fibers throughout the nonwoven fibrous structure versus
clumping of the same fibers in the absence of the hydrophilizing agent"
(Br. 2-3), whereas "Harmon is not focused on rendering the rayon fibers
themselves to be more hydrophilic but are [sic] rather focused on changing
the viscosity of the media carrying the fibers" (Br. 3).
Harmon discloses that the dispersing agent is very hydrophilic and
coats the fibers, thereby, like the Appellant's hydrophilizing agent
(Spec. 17:29-33), deterring clumping of the fibers (col. 4, 11. 1-2, 10-15).
The Appellant asserts that "there is no teaching or suggestion in either
Harmon or Marsh of Appellant's claimed invention of adding hydrophilizing
agent to the slurry in the headbox to product a fibrous substrate having a
contact angle of water on the synthetic fibers is [sic] less than 70 degrees,
after washing" (Br. 3).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Harmon and Marsh would
meet those claim requirements due to "use of like materials such as a
4
Appeal2018-002018
Application 14/704,135
mixture of cellulose and synthetic fibers and the claimed amount of
hydrophilizing agent and the use of like process such as forming a slurry of
fibers and hydrophilizing agent, dewatering, adhering the web to a Yankee
dryer and creping" (Final Act. 4). Because that finding is reasonable and the
Appellant has not challenged it, we accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann,
326 F.2d 424,425 n.3 (CCPA 1964).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 3---6 over
Harman in view of Marsh, claim 2 over Harman in view of Marsh and
Manning, and claim 7 over Harman in view of Marsh and Trokhan are
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
5