Ex Parte STENBERG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

15039431 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/039,431 05/26/2016
105855 7590 11/15/2018
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
1500 K Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin STENBERG
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.
049121-0421-00-US-542062 1088
EXAMINER
KUMAR, RAKESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN STENBERG, JAN LUNDGREN, and
MARTEN RITTFELDT
Appeal2018-007873
Application 15/039,431
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-10 1 and 15-24. Appellants' representative presented oral
arguments on November 6, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Although claim 11 is listed on the Office Action Summary form PTOL-326
dated November 24, 2017, this claim is not included in any of the rejections
articulated in this Office Action, as confirmed by the Examiner in the
Answer. See Ans. 3. The Examiner indicates that claim 11 is allowable. Id.
Appeal2018-007873
Application 15/039,431
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A dispenser for interfolded napkins, comprising:
an inner container having:
a bottom wall extending in a horizontal plane, side walls
extending from the bottom wall in a vertical direction
perpendicular thereto, and a dispensing opening opposite the
bottom wall, the side walls of the inner container surrounding a
supporting surface for supporting a stack of interfolded napkins;
and
an outer sleeve comprising:
at least one open end being arranged to receive the inner
container such that the inner container is insertable into the outer
sleeve along an insertion direction extending in parallel to said
horizontal plane, and a dispensing mouth that forms an open end
towards said open end of the outer sleeve, wherein the dispensing
opening and the dispensing mouth both extend along said
insertion direction, wherein an area of the dispensing opening is
larger than the dispensing mouth, and wherein, when the inner
container is located in the outer sleeve, the supporting surface is
biased towards the dispensing opening of the inner container and
vertically movable inside the inner container between a lower
position adjacent the bottom wall of the inner container, and an
upper position adjacent the dispensing opening of the inner
container, and at a distance from an inner periphery of the outer
sleeve, forming a space between the upper position and the
dispensing mouth, and wherein, at least in a region adjacent the
open end of the dispensing mouth, an outer contour of upper ends
of the side walls of the inner container deviates from the inner
periphery of the outer sleeve, forming an access opening to the
space between the upper position and the dispensing mouth,
when the inner container is located inside the outer sleeve.
2
Appeal2018-007873
Application 15/039,431
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tuttle
Grondin
Bodek
Wieser
Zeiron
Kleinhuber
Bae
us 2,849,153
us 3,168,275
us 3,840,146
US 7,178,689 B2
US 7,661,553 B2
US 2011/0315707 Al
KR 2010/0099457 A
REJECTIONS
Aug. 26, 1958
Feb.2, 1965
Oct. 8, 1974
Feb.20,2007
Feb. 16,2010
Dec. 29, 2011
Sept. 13, 2010
I. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Grondin, Kleinhuber, Wieser, and
Bae.
II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being over
Grondin, Kleinhuber, Wieser, Bae, and Tuttle.
III. Claims 2, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Grondin, Kleinhuber, Wieser, Bae, and
Bodek.
IV. Claims 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Grondin, Kleinhuber, Wieser, Bae, and
Zeiron.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Grondin, Kleinhuber, Wieser, and Bae
disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2---6. In
particular, the Examiner finds that "Kleinhuber discloses an inner
container." Id. at 4 (citing Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that Kleinhuber's
3
Appeal2018-007873
Application 15/039,431
inner container has an "outer contour of the upper ends of the side walls of
the inner container [that] deviates from the inner periphery of the sleeve
forming an access opening to the space between the upper position and the
dispensing mouth." Id. (parenthetical information omitted).
Appellants contend that the Examiner's finding is in error. See
Appeal Br. 9--10. Specifically, Appellants note that in Figure 4 Kleinhuber
"shows the inner core, represented by feature 3, having a lid, represented by
feature 34, and 'basis,' represented by feature 32" and that Kleinhuber's "lid
carries a locking member, represented by feature 340, in the form of an
overlapping portion that overlaps with the complementary portion of the
'basis."' Id. ( citations omitted). Given these observations, Appellants argue
that Kleinhuber' s lid snaps "into the 'basis' and has nothing to do with ease
or difficulty of grasping the inner container." Id. at 10 (citing Kleinhuber
if 62).
Kleinhuber states that Figure 4 "is a perspective view of the inner core
... with the lid lifted." Kleinhuber ,r 36. Comparison of Kleinhuber's
Figure 4 with Kleinhuber's Figure 3, which "is a perspective view of the
inner core ... in a closed state" (id. ,r 35), shows that although Kleinhuber
has an outer contour that "deviates from the inner periphery of the outer
sleeve," this deviation does not form an access opening as required by claim
1. Thus, the Examiner's finding is in error.
Neither Wieser nor Bae cure this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 3-7, 9, 10, and
22-24, which depend therefrom.
Rejections II-IV: Obviousness of Claims 2, 8, and 15-21
Rejections II-IV rely on the same erroneous finding as Rejection I.
Tuttle, Bodek, and Zeiron do not cure this deficiency in the Examiner's
4
Appeal2018-007873
Application 15/039,431
finding. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2,
8, and 15-21 for the same reason we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-10
and 15-24 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5