Manfred Bruno. Kobbe

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 17, 2019

14699195 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2019)

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.
14/699,195 04/29/2015 Manfred Bruno Kobbe CM4077MQ 1087
27752 7590 07/17/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
IMPINK, MOLLIE LLEWELLYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2019 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
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MANFRED BRUNO KOBBE1
__________________

Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 21–40. Br. 1. Claims 1–20 are cancelled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Braun GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Procter and Gamble
Company, is identified as the real party in interest and also is the applicant
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed package is formed unitarily from a cardboard blank.
Spec. 1:4–6. Back wall 11 includes crease 66 that forms indentation 76
when hinged lids 30, 32 are closed. Id. at 8:27–31, Fig. 4. Indentation 76
may provide a gripping aid to facilitate the handling of package 11. Id.
at 8:31–32. Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
21. A package (11) unitarily formed from a cardboard blank
(12) for storing a product(14), the package (11)
comprising:
a back wall (20),
a first hinged lid section (30) and a second hinged lid
section (32) to set the package (11) in an open or a closed
position, the first and the second hinged lid sections (30,
32) being opposite and substantially parallel to the back
wall (20) when the package (11) is in the closed position,
a first pair of mutually opposite side walls (22, 24)
extending from the back wall (20);
the first hinged lid section (30) extending from one of the
side walls (24) of the first pair and the second hinged lid
section (32) extending from the other side wall (22) of
the first pair;
a second pair of mutually opposite side walls (26, 28)
oriented substantially perpendicular to the first pair of
side walls (22, 24) and extending from the back wall
(20); wherein
each of the side walls (26, 28) of the second pair
comprising an extension (34) that forms a U-shaped
stiffening member (36, 38), wherein
the stiffening member (36, 38) comprises a base (40)
oriented substantially perpendicular to the back wall (20),
a first leg (42) parallel and attached to the back wall (20),
and a second leg (44) substantially parallel and opposite
to the first leg (42), the first and the second legs (42, 44)
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

3
extending substantially perpendicular from the base (40),
wherein
the second leg (44), which is parallel to the back wall
(20), supports the first hinged lid section (30) and the
second hinged lid section (32) when the package (11) is
in the closed position; wherein
the back wall (20) comprises at least one crease (66)
acting as a hinge and extending between the U-shaped
stiffening members (36, 38),
and at each end (68, 70) of the crease (66) an intersection
(72, 74) is provided which extends from the crease (66)
to one of the hinged lid sections (30, 32), so that a first
portion (78) is turned in a substantially perpendicular
position with respect to the back wall (20), and a second
portion (80) which extends between the intersections (72,
74) is set substantially in alignment with the second legs
(44) of the U-shaped stiffening members (36, 38) to
provide an indentation (76) on an outside surface of the
package when the package ( 11) is set in the closed
position.

Br. 9–10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, and 29–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gallistel (US 1,677,918, iss. July 24, 1928), Del Priore
(US 3,836,066, iss. Sept. 17, 1974), and Miller (US 2013/0186804 A1, pub.
July 25, 2013).
Claims 38–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gallistel, Del Priore, Miller, and Lev (US 6,889,829 B2, iss. May 10, 2005).
Claims 23, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gallistel, Del Priore, Miller, and Reynolds (US 3,095,137,
iss. June 25, 1963).
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, and 29–38
As Unpatentable Over Gallistel, Del Priore, and Miller
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Br. 4–6. We select claim 21
as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner relies on Gallistel to teach all of the
features of the claimed package except a back wall crease and a package
made of cardboard. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner relies on Del Priore to
teach a unitarily formed package made from a cardboard blank with a back
wall (bottom wall 12’), crease (score line 23’), and areas 44A, 44B that form
an intersection extending from the crease to one of the hinged lid sections to
provide an indentation when the package is closed as claimed. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to include indented areas
as taught by Del Priore on Gallistel “in order to provide protection on four
sides of the article being packaged instead of only two sides.” Id. at 4. The
Examiner relies on Miller to teach a package made of cardboard. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the claimed indentation is on the outside surface
and the indentation in Del Priore is not on the outside of the package when
the package is closed because it is covered by elements 50A and 50B. Br. 5.
Appellant argues that it is impermissible for Appellant to rely on Del Priore
only to teach indentations formed by areas 44 without closing flaps 50A and
50B to cover the indented area because there is no teaching or motivation in
Del Priore to exclude flaps 50A and 50B. Id. at 5–6. Appellant also argues
that closing flaps 50A and 50B are necessary to create an air pocket in Del
Priore’s package and, therefore, the Examiner cannot use areas 44 without
the closing flaps 50A and 50B.
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

5
The Examiner’s reason for including areas 44 and indentations on the
package of Gallistel is supported by a rational underpinning based on Del
Priore’s teachings that areas 44 form indentations that hold the edges of an
article in place when the package is closed and also protect the sides of an
article by preventing the article from shifting. Final Act. 4; Ans. 7; see also
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that the use
of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond the level of ordinary skill).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the indentations
formed by adding areas 44 to Gallistel must be covered by flaps 50A and
50B of Del Priore because Gallistel already has outer flaps (members 7) that
function as the claimed hinged lid sections to close Gallistel’s package. See
Final Act. 3; Gallistel, 1:21–33, Fig. 2. The Examiner proposes to modify
back wall 5 of Gallistel to include areas 44 taught by Del Priore to provide
additional support and cushioning for an article such as a book that is placed
inside of Gallistel’s package. In this regard, Gallistel uses end flap cushions
8, 9 that form outer end walls to cushion and protect the top and bottom edge
of books contained in the package. Gallistel, 1:33–55, Fig. 2. The Examiner
proposes to form areas 44 of Del Priore in bottom member 5 of Gallistel for
similar benefits of protecting the side edges of a book against shifting in the
package of Gallistel as Del Priore teaches. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 7.
The Examiner is not modifying Del Priore’s package as Appellant
argues. Br. 6. Instead, the Examiner applies Del Priore’s teachings of
stabilizing areas 44 in a similar package of Gallistel for similar benefits of
protecting and stabilizing side edges of an article placed into Gallistel’s
package as Del Priore teaches. Del Priore, 2:45–55, 5:47–64; Ans. 7.
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

6
This modification is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and
has a reasonable expectation of success based on Del Priore’s teachings.
Even if area 44 and outer flaps 50A, 50B also form an air pocket, Del Priore
teaches that area 44, by itself, prevents articles from shifting in a package.
Id. at 2:51–55. Del Priore claims this anti-shifting feature without claiming
an air cushion with it. See id. at 7:60–8:11 (claim 1); Ans. 7–8 (citing id.).
Skilled artisans would appreciate the advantages of using Del Priore’s
area 44 without flaps 50A, 50B to improve Gallistel’s package by preventing
articles in the package from shifting (id.) without using an air cushion. The
modified Gallistel package is improved by areas 44 retaining articles against
lateral shifting when Gallistel already prevents vertical shifting with end flap
cushions 8, 9. Del Priore, 1:48–55. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 21, and claims 22, 25, 26, and 29–38, which fall therewith.
Claims 38–40
As Unpatentable Over Gallistel, Del Priore, Miller, and Lev
Appellant argues that Lev does not cure the deficiencies of Gallistel,
Del Priore, and Miller with respect to claim 21 from which claims 38–40
depend. Br. 7. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 21, there are no
deficiencies for Lev to cure, and we sustain the rejection of claims 38–40.
Claims 23, 24, 27, and 28
As Unpatentable Over Gallistel, Del Priore, Miller, and Reynolds
Appellant argues that Reynolds does not cure the deficiencies of
Gallistel, Del Priore, and Miller with respect to claim 21 from which claims
23, 24, 27, and 28 depend. Br. 7–8. Because we sustain the rejection of
claim 21, there are no deficiencies for Reynolds to cure, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 23, 24, 27, and 28.
Appeal 2018-008128
Application 14/699,195

7
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 21–40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED