Ex Parte Roe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

14156768 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/156,768 01/16/2014
27752 7590 07/06/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald Carroll Roe
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.
10352MC 6196
EXAMINER
TREYGER, IL YA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 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):
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 DONALD CARROLL ROE,
JENNIFER JOAN GUSTIN, and MASAHARU NISHIKAWA
Appeal2017-008807
Application 14/156,768
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated May 19, 2016 ("Final
Act."), rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Procter & Gamble Company, which the
Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008807
Application 14/156,768
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below:
1. An absorbent article for wearing about the lower torso of
a wearer said absorbent article comprising:
a first waist region, a second waist region disposed
opposite said first waist region, a crotch region connecting said
front waist region and said rear waist region,
an outer cover, a water-permeable topsheet attached to
said outer cover and having a body-facing surface;
an absorbent core disposed between said outer cover and
said topsheet; and
a wetness sensation member at least partially disposed in
said crotch region of said absorbent article, said wetness
sensation member providing a wetness indication to said wearer
upon a urination event, said wetness sensation member having a
body contacting portion, wherein said body contacting portion of
said wetness sensation member has a first Moisture Density of at
least about 2 mg/ cm2 at 60 seconds after said urination event and
a second Moisture Density at 10 minutes after said urination
event of less than about 80% of said first Moisture Density.
Br. 5 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roe (US 6,627,786 B2, issued Sept. 30, 2003).
II. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roe.
III. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Roe and Olson (US 6,635,797 B2, issued Oct. 21, 2003).
2
Appeal2017-008807
Application 14/156,768
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13
Appellant argues claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13 together as a group. Br. 2-
3. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-5, 9-11, and
13 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Roe discloses an absorbent article comprising
all limitations recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Roe
discloses a wetness sensation member that is substantially identical to
Appellant's disclosed wetness sensation member. Id. (citing Roe col. 5, 11.
9-20; Spec. i-f 99, 11. 1-11 2). As such, the Examiner finds that Roe's wetness
sensation member inherently comprises the Moisture Density properties
recited in claim 1. Id. (citing MPEP § 2112.01).
Appellant contends that
[ c ]laim 1 recites a wetness sensation member having a body
contacting portion, wherein said body contacting portion of said
wetness sensation member has a first Moisture Density of at least
about 2 mg/ cm2 at 60 seconds after said urination event and a
second Moisture Density at 10 minutes after said urination event
of less than about 80% of said first Moisture Density. Roe '786
is not understood to disclose the aforementioned claim
limitations in accordance with the above standard.
Br. 2; see also id. at 3.
Appellant's contention, which merely reproduces language in claim 1,
does not apprise us of any error in the Examiner's findings, or otherwise
inform us why Appellant believes Roe fails to disclose the recited Moisture
Density properties. We note that "[a] statement which merely points out
2 We understand the Examiner is referring to Appellant's published
Application.
3
Appeal2017-008807
Application 14/156,768
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("we hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Accordingly,
we do not consider Appellant's contention as an argument for patentability
of claim 1. As Appellant presents no other substantive argument, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, as anticipated by, or unpatentable over, Roe.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-11, and 13 fall with claim 1.
Rejection II-Claims 6-8
Appellant does not address the rejection of dependent claims 6-8 as
unpatentable over Roe. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection for the same
reason as for claim 1.
Re} ection III-Claim 12
Appellant relies solely on the argument presented for claim 1 for
patentability of dependent claim 12. Id. at 4. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Roe and Olson for the same
reason as for claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4