SCA Hygiene Products AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2020002182 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
15/759,585 03/13/2018 Natalia Maria PETRO BEDOYA 1018798-001007 8606
105718 7590 12/14/2020
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
COLLINS, RAVEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATALIA MARIA PETRO BEDOYA and
JUAN SABASTIAN SANCHEZ VALDES

Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–16, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Essity Hygiene And Health Aktiebolag. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification “relates to a packaging unit for disposable hygiene
articles and to a method of forming a packaging unit for disposable hygiene
articles from a sheet of material.” Spec. 1:4–5.
The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5–16, 18, and 19 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other
claims are pending. Id.; Appeal Br. 14–18. Claims 1 and 16 are
independent. Appeal Br. 14–18. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below.
1. A packaging unit for a disposable hygiene article,
the unit comprising
– an elongated sheet of packaging material having an inner
surface and an outer surface and the elongated sheet
comprising:
– a first longitudinal end zone and a second
longitudinal end zone, wherein the longitudinal end
zones extend in a direction transverse to a
longitudinal direction of the elongated sheet, and
– two side edge zones which extend in the
longitudinal direction of the elongated sheet,
wherein the side edge zones and the first
longitudinal end zone comprise a resealable
adhesive coating string along the length of the side
edge zones and the first longitudinal end zone,
respectively, and
– an elongated disposable hygiene article extending in a
longitudinal direction of the elongated sheet placed on the
inner surface of the sheet such that it fits within an area
limited by the side edge zones and the first longitudinal
end zone, the unit being formed by folding the elongated
sheet and the disposable hygiene article, the unit having a
first folding axis and a second folding axis, each folding
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

3
axis extending in the direction transverse to the
longitudinal direction of the elongated sheet, and the first
folding axis is arranged between a third region in the
packaging unit and a second region in the packaging unit
and the second folding axis is arranged between the second
region and a first region of the packaging unit and wherein
the first region is arranged to form a lid for the packaging
unit after folding, wherein the first longitudinal end zone
is comprised in the first region and comprises at least two
adjacent, in the direction transverse to the longitudinal
direction of the elongated sheet, resealable adhesive
coating strings that extend along the length of the first
longitudinal end zone and are arranged such that a central
adhesive free area is formed to form a gripping gap, the
central adhesive free area extending continuously from a
first longitudinal end of the elongated sheet in the first
longitudinal end zone to a longitudinal end of the article
which is closest to the first longitudinal end of the
elongated sheet in the first longitudinal end zone, and the
central adhesive free area overlapping a central
longitudinal axis of the elongated sheet,
wherein the article has an end portion having a pre-
determined length that extends beyond the second
longitudinal end zone, and
wherein the unit is arranged to be folded along a first
folding axis such that the third region is pressed against
the second region and the end portion that extends beyond
the second longitudinal end zone is pressed against the
first region, and the unit is further arranged to be folded
along the second folding axis such that the first region
together with the end portion are pressed against the outer
surface of the elongated sheet in the third region, whereby
the end portion forms a gripping portion when the unit is
opened.
Id. at 14–15.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

4
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s rejections, both pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, are as
follows:
1. claims 1, 2, 5–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over
Ekstedt,2 Nomoto,3 and Zweber4 (Final Act. 3); and
2. claim 11 as unpatentable over Ekstedt, Nomoto, Zweber, and
Arora5 (id. at 7).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Ekstedt discloses “a packaging unit for hygiene articles.” Ekstedt ¶1.
The Examiner found that Ekstedt teaches much of the subject matter of
claim 1. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Ekstedt, Figs. 9, 11, and 12).6 The Examiner
found that Ekstedt does not teach the following limitations of claim 1:
[A] wherein the first longitudinal end zone is comprised in the
first region and comprises at least two adjacent, in the direction
transverse to the longitudinal direction of the elongated sheet,
resealable adhesive coating strings that extend along the length
of the first longitudinal end zone and are arranged such that a
central adhesive free area is formed to form a gripping gap, the
central adhesive free area extending continuously from a first
longitudinal end of the elongated sheet in the first longitudinal
end zone to a longitudinal end of the article which is closest to
the first longitudinal end of the elongated sheet in the first

2 US 2016/0228309 A1, published Aug. 11, 2016 (“Ekstedt”).
3 US 2018/0243146 A1, published Aug. 30, 2018 (“Nomoto”).
4 US 4,546,875, issued Oct. 15, 1985 (“Zweber”).
5 US 2011/0104459 A1, published May 5, 2011 (“Arora”).
6 The Examiner also cites Ekstedt “pg. 16, ll. 15-25,” but Ekstedt lacks a
page 16. The Examiner also cites “pg. 3, ll. 12-17,” but page 3 of Ekstedt
has two columns, each of which contains such numbered lines. The
Examiner also cites “claim 19,” but Ekstedt lacks a claim 19.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

5
longitudinal end zone, and the central adhesive free area
overlapping a central longitudinal axis of the elongated sheet,
[and]
[B] wherein the article has an end portion having a pre-
determined length that extends beyond the second longitudinal
end zone.
Appeal Br. 14 (claim 1); see Final Act. 4. The Examiner likewise
acknowledged that Ekstedt does not teach similar limitations recited in claim
16. Final Act. 4 (grouping claims 1, 13, 14, and 16 together).
For the limitation we label “B,” the Examiner relies on Nomoto and
proposes a modification of Ekstedt in view thereof. Final Act. 4 (citing
Nomoto, Fig. 2). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding in this
regard or that particular modification of Ekstedt. Appeal Br. 6–12.
What Appellant does dispute, however, is the Examiner’s further
modification of Ekstedt in view of Nomoto and Zweber to satisfy the
limitation we label “A.” Id. at 8–12. The difference between the claimed
invention and Ekstedt is exhibited by comparing Appellant’s Figure 1b and
Ekstedt’s Figure 9, which are reproduced below at left and right,
respectively.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

6

Appellant’s Figure 1b, reproduced above left, shows “a packaging
unit . . . in an open state with an unused disposable hygiene article.” Spec.
10:8–9. Ekstedt’s Figure 9, reproduced above right, also shows “a
packaging unit” in an open state for a disposable hygiene article (not
shown). Ekstedt ¶68. At the upper end of Appellant’s packing unit is first
longitudinal end zone 6, which includes two resealable adhesive coatings
17a, 17b, and a central adhesive free area 29 therebetween. Spec. 17:1–3,
Fig. 1b.7 In contrast, the corresponding end zone of Ekstedt (304') includes
a single, continuous “adhesive 12” such that no central adhesive free area
exists. Ekstedt ¶74, Fig. 9. Thus, the Examiner relies on modifications to
Ekstedt in view of Nomoto and Zweber. We turn first to Nomoto.

7 We use “upper” with respect to the orientation of the packing unit in
Appellant’s Figure 1b.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

7
Nomoto discloses packaging unit 1 for a disposable hygiene article.
Nomoto ¶¶1–2, 54, 56. The Examiner found that Nomoto teaches two
“resealable adhesive coating strings 35, 36 that extend along the length of
the first longitudinal end zone and the strings being . . . arranged such that a
central adhesive free area is formed to form a gripping gap.” Final Act. 4
(citing Nomoto, Abstr., Fig. 2). The Examiner concluded: “It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Ekstedt to include the strips of Nomoto in order to assist
in properly sealing the packaging for safe keeping of the feminine product.”
Final Act. 4.
Nomoto does include separate “joining portions” 35, 36 in the
upperleft and right corners, respectively, of the packing unit. See, e.g.,
Nomoto ¶¶72–73, Figs. 2, 7.8 However, Nomoto also includes “adhesive
29,” which extends entirely across the portion of Nomoto corresponding to
the “first longitudinal end zone” recited in the claim. Id. In other words,
even though Nomoto has an adhesive free area between (or in the center of)
joining portions 35, 36, Nomoto (like Ekstedt) lacks a “central adhesive free
area extending continuously from a first longitudinal end of the elongated
sheet in the first longitudinal end zone to a longitudinal end of the article
which is closest to the first longitudinal end of the elongated sheet in the first
longitudinal end zone,” as recited in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner proposed
a further modification in view of Zweber.
Zweber discloses a wrapper for rolls of coins, such as those used in
banks. Zweber 1:5–9. The Examiner found:

8 We use “upper” with respect to the orientation of the packing unit in
Ekstedt’s Figures 2 and 7.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

8
Zweber teaches the central adhesive free area extending
continuously from a first longitudinal end of the product 14 in
the first longitudinal end zone to a longitudinal end of the
article which is closest to the first longitudinal end of the
elongated sheet in the first longitudinal end zone, and the
central adhesive free area overlapping a central longitudinal
axis of the elongated sheet.
Final Act. 4 (citing Zweber, Figs. 1–3). The Examiner concluded: “It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Ekstedt to include the adhesive free zone of Zweber in
order to assist in . . . unwrapping the product from the outer packaging.” Id.
at 4–5.
Appellant argues the following:
Ekstedt aims at providing a packaging unit which can be
used both for packaging a new hygiene article and for safe and
sanitary disposing of a used hygiene article and which provides
a possibility of forming a tight package both for anew and a
used article, thus keeping the new article sanitary and dean
prior to use, and eliminating the risk of staining and odour
when a used article is packaged.
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Ekstedt ¶¶24, 25, 74, 75, 77, 81, 83). Appellant is
correct, as Ekstedt explicitly teaches that adhesive 21 is provided along edge
304' (i.e., the asserted first longitudinal end zone) “[i]n order to obtain a tight
package.” Ekstedt ¶83; see also id. ¶81 (“This is a great advantage, since
when the packaging unit of the present invention is used for disposal, the
user does not have to fold the packaging unit in any particular order to be
able to obtain a tightly sealed package.”), ¶6 (criticizing a prior art
packaging unit, stating: “A major disadvantage of [WO 94/14396] is that it
is not possible to form a tightly sealed package when the article is to be
disposed of.”). Thus, according to Appellant, “one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

9
art would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification.”
Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 11–12 (“It is clear that if the Ekstedt
packaging unit is modified to adopt a break (an opening) in the adhesive in
the sealing area, the resultant packaging unit would not be able to provide a
tight sealing, as required in Ekstedt, thereby rendering it unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose.” (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
MPEP § 2143.01.V)).
Appellant further points out that Ekstedt already includes an adhesive-
free portion to aid in opening the packaging unit. Appeal Br. 11 (citing
Ekstedt ¶¶33, 84). Appellant is correct; Ekstedt discloses:
In order to facilitate the opening of the package, the
adhesive-covered portions are positioned such that at least one of
the comer portions 21 of the packaging unit 301 is adhesive-free,
thus forming a gripping tab that is gripped by the user upon
opening the package. Moreover, the adhesive-free comer portion
21 serves as an evacuation opening when the packaging unit is
sealed (FIG. 10).
Ekstedt ¶84.
In short, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not make the proposed modifications to Ekstedt because it would
have sacrificed a tight seal in exchange for something already existing in
Ekstedt: an adhesive free gripping portion to assist in unwrapping the
product from the outer packaging. See Reply Br. 3 (“[B]y having a break
(an opening) in the adhesive in the central sealing area, the resultant
packaging unit would not have been expected to have as good tight sealing,
which is the main purpose of Ekstedt, as the packaging unit having an
adhesive free comer portion.”). Appellant has the better position.
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

10
Indeed, in the Answer, the Examiner does not specifically rebut
Appellant’s arguments. Instead, the Examiner states:
Because Ekstedt teaches the ability for adhesive portions to exist
along the upper and side portions of the wrapper, rearranging the
adhesive areas to form the claimed pattern would be obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art since such a modification
would fail to hinder the workability of the wrapper in an alternate
adhesive configuration. It has been held that rearranging parts of
an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Ans. 7 (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)). However,
Appellant persuasively distinguishes Japikse from the facts before us. Reply
Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant correctly points out that the proposed (and
affirmed as obvious) rearrangement in Japikse “would not have modified the
operation of the device.” Id. at 2; see also Japikse, 181 F2d. at 1031
(affirming the Board’s holding that “there would be no invention in shifting
the starting switch disclosed by Cannon to a different position since the
operation of the device would not thereby be modified”). Here, in contrast,
Appellant has argued persuasively, with supporting citations to Ekstedt, that
the proposed modification of Ekstedt would reduce its sealing capabilities.
Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has not rebutted Appellant’s
arguments in this regard. Further, the rationale articulated by the Examiner
“in order to assist in unwrapping. . .” (Final Act. 4–5) is not specifically
related to the Examiner’s proposed modification, in that the Examiner does
not explain why unwrapping would be further facilitated by rearranging the
adhesive free zone as proposed by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 16, as well as that of dependent claims 5–10, 12–15, 18, and
19. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent
Appeal 2020-002182
Application 15/759,585

11
claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious.”).
Rejection 2
Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner
rejected claim 11 as unpatentable over Ekstedt, Nomoto, Zweber, and Arora.
Final Act. 7. In doing so, the Examiner does not rely on Arora in a manner
that could cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 11.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–10,
12–16, 18,
19
103 Ekstedt, Nomoto,
Zweber
1, 2, 5–10,
12–16, 18,
19
11 103 Ekstedt, Nomoto,
Zweber, Arora
11
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–16,
18, 19

REVERSED