Ex Parte Rhodes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13336006 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/336,006 12/23/2011
23556 7590 02/28/2019
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian K. Rhodes
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.
64765216US01 5717
EXAMINER
KIDWELL, MICHELE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
Kimberlyclark. docketing@kcc.com
Tisha.Sutherland@kcc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN K. RHODES, SUZANNE M. SCHMOKER,
KIMBERLY L. ELLEFSON, JULIE A. PA VELETZKE,
KIMBERLY M. DOWNS, and BRENT C. OTIS
Appeal2018-005995 1
Application 13/336,0062
Technology Center 3700
Before: CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 17,
2017), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June
22, 2017) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 6, 2018).
2 Appellants identify "Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc." as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005995
Application 13/336,006
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a refastenable, disposable
absorbent garment. Spec. 1, 1. 30.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal,
and is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A refastenable disposable absorbent garment
defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the
garment defining longitudinally spaced apart first and second
waist edges extending generally in the transverse direction, the
garment comprising:
a first waist region contiguous with the first waist edge and
defining first and second side edges spaced apart in the transverse
direction, the first waist region defining opposed first and second
surfaces, wherein the first surface is a body-facing surface and
the second surface is a garment facing surface, wherein the first
waist region is elastomeric proximal both the first side edge and
the second side edge of the first waist region;
a second waist region contiguous with the second waist
edge and defining first and second side edges spaced apart in the
transverse direction;
a crotch region that extends between and interconnects the
first and second waist regions;
the garment further comprising a non-extensible,
relatively rigid first fastening component comprising a
mechanical fastener attached to the body-facing surface of the
first waist region at a location transversely inward from its first
side edge and further comprising a non-extensible, relatively
rigid second fastening component comprising a mechanical
fastener attached to the body-facing surface of the first waist
region at a location transversely inward from its second side
edge, the first and second fastening components each having a
length;
wherein the first waist region defines a first flange portion
located transversely outward of the first fastening component
such that the first flange portion is positioned between the first
side edge and the first fastening component and has a first
2
Appeal2018-005995
Application 13/336,006
transverse width defined as the transverse distance from an
outward-most edge of the first fastening component to the first
side edge and a second flange portion located transversely
outward of the second fastening component such that the second
flange portion is positioned between the second side edge and the
second fastening component and has a second transverse width
defined as the transverse distance from an outward-most edge of
the second fastening component to the second side edge,
wherein the first flange portion is transversely curled
toward the garment facing surface of the first waist region along
a first flange portion curled length, and wherein the second
flange portion is transversely curled toward the garment facing
surface of the first waist region along a second flange portion
curled length.
Br. 7-8 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) and (e) as
anticipated by Kinoshita (US 2011/0071489 Al, pub. March 24, 2011).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kinoshita.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 9 and 10
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) and (e) because
Kinoshita does not teach a "flange portion located transversely outward of
the first fastening component," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. With reference
to the Examiner's annotated versions ofKinoshita's Figures 1 and 3, the
Examiner ostensibly identifies Kinoshita's fixed region 23 as the claimed
flange portion. See Final Act. 3---6. The difficulty with the Examiner's
3
Appeal2018-005995
Application 13/336,006
finding, however, is that the fixed portion 23 is not "located transversely
outward of the first fastening component [21] such that the first flange
portion is positioned between the first side edge and the first fastening
component," as required by claim 1. Instead, as pointed out by Appellants
(Br. 5), fixed portion 23 is located transversely inward from the first
fastening component. See Kinoshita, Figs. 1, 3.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) and (e) of independent claim 1, and claims 9 and 10, which depend
therefrom.
Dependent Claims 2-7
Claims 2-7 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-7 does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 7-8. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2-7 for the
same reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a), (e) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4