Ex Parte Popp et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11305182 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/305,182 12/15/2005 Robert L. Popp 20,351 1644
23556 7590 07/31/2012
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tara Pohlkotte
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 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 ROBERT L. POPP, LAWRENCE H. SAWYER,
JOSEPH D. COENEN, CHRISTOPHER P. OLSON,
MICHAEL J. FAULKS and JAMES M. CARR
___________

Appeal 2010-000395
Application 11/305,182
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS and GAY ANN SPAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000395
Application 11/305,182

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert L. Popp et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. §
134 of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an absorbent article having a liner
comprising three zones across a lateral direction thereof. Independent claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An absorbent article comprising:

an outer cover comprising a stretchable material;

a stretchable bodyside liner joined to the outer cover in a
superimposed relation;

an absorbent structure positioned in between the outer cover
and liner; and

wherein the outer cover, liner and absorbent structure form a
chassis having a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis, and
wherein the liner comprises three zones across a lateral
direction, the three zones comprising a first edge zone, a
middle zone, and a second edge zone, and wherein the
middle zone is a uniaxial stretch material that stretches in
a first direction, and the respective first and second edge
zones stretch in a second direction that is different than
the first direction.

Appeal 2010-000395
Application 11/305,182

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vogt (WO 99/33426 A1, pub. Jul. 8, 1999) in view
of Abuto (US 5,964,743, iss. Oct. 12, 1999).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner established that Vogt teaches or suggests a liner
comprising three zones across a lateral direction, including a middle zone
which is a uniaxial stretch material?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner takes the position that, while Vogt does not specifically
disclose a liner comprising three zones1, the presence on the liner of a
longitudinal line of adhesive securing the liner to a surge panel “allows the
liner to be extensible in areas outlying the line of adhesive.” Ans. 4. The
Examiner thus finds that Vogt does disclose various zones of stretchability
and/or extensibility, with a middle zone created by the line of adhesive that
limits stretching in that area. Ans. 4, 5.
While Appellants appear to acknowledge that the presence of a bead
of adhesive will likely alter the stretch properties at the area of attachment,
Appellants argue that
the use of a bead of adhesive on a biaxially stretchable liner
does not convert that liner into one having at least 3 zones, with
the middle zone being a uniaxial material that stretches in a first

1 The Examiner makes reference to Vogt/Abuto, but relies on Abuto only for
the teaching of a stretchable absorbent structure, and not characteristics of
the claimed liner. Ans. 4-5.
Appeal 2010-000395
Application 11/305,182

4
direction, and the first and second edge zones stretching in a
second direction that is different than the first direction.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appellants have the better argument here.
The Examiner’s statement that the longitudinal line of adhesive
“allows the liner to be extensible in areas outlying the line of adhesive”
suggests that it is the Examiner’s position that the region on the liner in Vogt
to which adhesive has been applied is no longer extensible.2 How, then, can
that region or zone be said to be “a uniaxial stretch material” as recited in
claim 1, or be “limited to stretching in a direction parallel to the lateral axis”
as recited in claims 10 and 13? If the Examiner’s position is instead that the
adhesive does not entirely preclude stretching, then how can the liner
material of Vogt have first and second edge zones that are stretchable in a
direction different from the direction of the middle zone, considering that the
liner is made of a single panel of material?
To the extent that the Examiner attempts to reach these limitations in
maintaining that Vogt “teaches the general conditions of varying stretch
capabilities in different regions on the liner” and that “one having ordinary
skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation
the degree and/or directional stretch required for each region,” such a
position is not supported by rational underpinnings. See Ans. 5. While the
application of adhesives to a liner may affect in some manner the stretch

2 We note that Vogt states that the line of adhesive “allows bodyside liner 24
freedom to extend outwardly in the cross-direction ‘C’ without significant
resistance from surge layer 78” which is attached to the liner by the
adhesive. Vogt, p. 10, ll. 12-15. This at least suggests that the adhesive
itself does not constrain stretching of the liner material, or that it is less of a
factor than is the surge layer material.
Appeal 2010-000395
Application 11/305,182

5
capabilities of the liner, that is an incidental result, in that Vogt is directed to
using the adhesives for that which they are conventionally used, namely, to
secure one component to another.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not established that Vogt teaches or suggests a liner
comprising three zones across a lateral direction, including a middle zone
which is a uniaxial stretch material.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh