The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

14933024 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
14/933,024 11/05/2015 Kelyn Anne ARORA 14060 6751
27752 7590 10/02/2020
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KRASNOW, NICHOLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
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 KELYN ANNE ARORA, TIMOTHY IAN MULLANE,
JILL MARLENE ORR, DONALD CARROLL ROE, and
JOHN BRIAN STRUBE

Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Procter &
Gamble Company. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

2
Appellant’s invention generally relates to aperture to webs that are
useful in disposable absorbent products. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A method of producing a patterned apertured web, the
method comprising:
providing a web having a central longitudinal axis, wherein the
web comprises a plurality of overbonds extending parallel
to, within +/- 5 degrees, the central longitudinal axis;
conveying the web in a machine direction, wherein the machine
direction is parallel to, within +/- 5 degrees, a direction of
extension of the central longitudinal axis of the web; and
stretching the web in a cross-machine direction that is
perpendicular to, within +/- 5 degrees, the machine direction
to cause at least some of the overbonds to at least partially
rupture and at least partially form patterned apertures in the
web;
wherein at least some of the patterned apertures have Absolute
Feret Angles, according to the Aperture Test, of at least
about 20 degrees and less than about 70 degrees;
and
wherein at least some of the patterned apertures have an Aspect
Ratio, according to the Aperture Test, in the range of about
2:1 to about 6:1.

Appeal Br. 11, Claims Appendix.
The following rejections are presented for our review:
I. Claims 1–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
unpatentable over the combination of Gillespie (US 6,632,504 B1; Oct. 14,
2003), Benson (US 5,914,084; June 22, 1999), Lee (US 2014/0324009 A1;
Oct. 30, 2014), and Amirnasr (Dissertation, 2012).
Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

3
II. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Gillespie, Benson, Lee, Amirnasr, and Ahoniemi (US
2008/0300562 A1; Dec. 4, 2008).
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14 and 16–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over of Gillespie, Benson, Lee, and
Amirnasr as well as the rejection of claim 15 over those references further in
view of Ahoniemi.2
We consider the record to determine whether Appellant has identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
Appellant argues for reversal of all of the rejected claims as an
undifferentiated group. (See generally Appeal Br. 3–10.) We, therefore,
select claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Because we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s factual
findings, analysis, and conclusion, we adopt them as our own. We add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellant argues that the aperturing processes of Gillespie and Lee
are quite different therefore the teachings of these references cannot be

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Non-
Final Office Action. (Non-Final Act. 4–10.)
Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

4
legally combined. (Appeal Br. 6–7.) Appellant argues the Gillespie and Lee
combination is based on impermissible hindsight. (Appeal Br. 7–9.)
Appellant argues Gillespie only teaches apertures that are machine direction
oriented and nothing in Gillespie teaches how to make the orientation of the
apertures different than the direction of the over bonds. (Appeal Br. 7–8.)
Appellant argues Lee’s aperturing process, that produces more intricate
patterns, would not have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art how to
create these types of patterns utilizing over binding and cross-directional
stretching technology. (Appeal Br. 9.)
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Gillespie
teaches a method of producing an aperture to web comprising over binding
and cross-directional stretching as required by the claimed invention.3
(Non-Final Act. 5–6.) The Examiner recognized Gillespie failed to disclose
the Ferret Angle of the bond cites. (Non-Final Act. 6.) Addressing this
distinction, the Examiner cites Lee for describing pattern apertured webs
wherein the apertures are patterned with various Ferret Angles. (Non-Final
Act. 6–7; Lee ¶ 91.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to perform the process of Gillespie incorporating apertures patterned
with various Ferret Angles in order to form fibrous nonwoven webs having a
number of desired functions including improved absorbency, improved
breathability and a bulkier and thicker feel as taught by Lee. (Non-Final
Act. 7.)
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, it is not necessary to physically
incorporate the aperturing process of Lee into the process of Gillespie to

3 Appellant has not contested the Examiner's reliance on Benson for
describing conveying patterned aperture webs in a machine direction.
Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

5
render obvious the claimed invention. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550
(Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are
basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be
physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”) “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550,(Fed. Cir.
1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
It has not been disputed that forming webs comprising apertures
having various sizes and shapes that may also differ from one another was
known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. (e.g., Lee ¶ 87.) Gillespie
discloses the fragile bond cites are produced by thermal or ultrasonic point
bonding utilizing cylindrical calendar rolls having the desired pattern.
(Gillespie col. 5, ll. 2–5.) Gillespie further discloses the bond cites are
structured in a range to readily rupture was subject to tensile strength to form
discrete spaced apart apertures in the nonwoven web. (Gillespie col. 5, ll.
13–16.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that cylindrical calendar rolls would have been suitable for holding
a pattern that would have resulted in web apertures having various angles. A
Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

6
person with ordinary skill in the art possesses a certain basic level of skill.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In
view of the prior art cited one with ordinary skill in the art would have
readily recognized that a cylindrical calendar rolls would have been suitable
for holding a pattern that would have resulted in web apertures having
various Ferret Angles. Appellant has not directed us to evidence that
apertures created having various Ferret Angles would not readily ruptured
when subject to tensile strength as required by Gillespie.
Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s position that webs
comprising apertures patterned with various Ferret Angles provides fibrous
nonwoven webs with desirable characteristics including improved
absorbency, improved breathability and a bulkier and thicker feel as taught
by Lee.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claims 1–20.

Appeal 2019-006504
Application 14/933,024

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–11,
16–19 103
Gillespie, Benson,
Lee, Amirnasr
1–14, 16–
20
15 103
Gillespie, Benson,
Lee, Amirnasr,
Ahoniemi
15
Overall
Outcome 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED