Anders Andersson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2020

2020001670 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
14/236,147 01/30/2014 Anders Andersson 1018798-000753 9456
105718 7590 11/30/2020
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
FRY, PATRICK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2020 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 ANDERS ANDERSSON,
BJORN LARSSON, and
KENTH JOHANSSON
____________________

Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 and 27–34. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant argued against the Examiner’s rejections in an
oral hearing with the Board, on October 15, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, “ESSITY HYGIENE AND
HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG is the real party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

2
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to a method [and an
apparatus] for producing stacks of individual web sections, such as tissue
web sections, from a continuous web of material.” Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 9
are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent
claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A method for producing stacks of individual web
sections from a continuous web of material, comprising the
steps of:
(a) directing the continuous web to a perforating station;
(b) perforating the continuous web at predetermined
intervals and forming sheets of web material between
consecutive perforation lines extending laterally across the
continuous web, the perforating being carried out via at least
one perforation element arranged at the circumference of a
perforation roller;
(c) directing the continuous web to a cutting station;
(d) cutting at second predetermined intervals the
continuous web into web sections via a cutting element acting
against an anvil element, to generate a clear cut or a tab-bond;
(e) folding the web sections via a folding roll; and
(f) stacking the folded web sections to generate a stack of
folded sheets; wherein
in step (b) the continuous web is frictionally held and
transported at a controlled speed via a web tensioning device
arranged upstream and downstream of the perforating station,
wherein the web tensioning device comprises two rollers
upstream of the perforating station, with a space between the
rollers and the continuous web such that the rollers do not
contact each other directly or via the continuous web.

Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

3
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–19 and 27–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written-description requirement;
II. Claims 1–19 and 27–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite;
III. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 27, and 32–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bradley2 and Anderson;3
IV. Claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bradley, Anderson, and Craig;4
V. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bradley,
Anderson, and Cole;5
VI. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bradley,
Anderson, and Baggot;6
VII. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bradley,
Anderson, and DuFresne;7
VIII. Claims 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bradley, Anderson, and Fischer;8
IX. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Banks9 and
Anderson;

2 US 4,691,908, issued Sept. 8, 1987.
3 US 2004/0121121 A1, published June 24, 2004.
4 US 6,286,712 B1, issued Sept. 11, 2001.
5 US 5,151,077, issued Sept. 29, 1992.
6 US 2008/0028902 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008.
7 US 4,824,426, issued Apr. 25, 1989.
8 US 4,494,741, issued Jan. 22, 1985.
9 US 3,044,766, issued July 17, 1962.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

4
X. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Banks, Anderson, and Summerfield;10 and
XI. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Banks,
Anderson, Summerfield, and White.11
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Written-description rejection
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
the continuous web is frictionally held and transported at
a controlled speed via a web tensioning device arranged
upstream and downstream of the perforating station, wherein
the web tensioning device comprises two rollers upstream of
the perforating station, with a space between the rollers and the
continuous web such that the rollers do not contact each other
directly or via the continuous web.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Independent claim 9 includes a
similar recitation, and each of the other rejected claims depends from either
claim 1 or claim 9. Id.
According to the Examiner, the reason for the written-description
rejection is that
[o]n page 20[,] paragraph 3 of the substitute Specification, a
gap is disclosed between the two rollers 21, 22. But [the]
Specification does not explicitly disclose “the rollers do not
contact each other directly or via the continuous web.” Figure 4
does show a space between the rollers (21, 22), but also shows
the continuous web (2a) extending from the surface of the first
roller (21) to the surface of the second roller (22). Since the
continuous web extends from the first roller to the second
roller, the rollers contact each other via the continuous web.

10 US 4,725,469, issued Feb. 16, 1988.
11 US 6,165,116, issued Dec. 26, 2000.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

5
Therefore, the Specification does not disclose the feature
of “the rollers do not contact each other directly or via the
continuous web” (emphasis added) and said feature is
considered new matter.
Answer 3–4.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
interpretation, and Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error.
We note that ordinary and customary meanings of the term “via” are
“through the medium or agency of,” and “by means of.” From
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/via (last accessed
November 25, 2020). Appellant’s Figure 4 shows rollers 21 and 22
contacting each other by means of, and through the medium of, the
continuous web.
Appellant argues that pages 12 and 20 of the Specification, which
describe the embodiment in Appellant’s Figure 4, provide written-
description support for the claimed roller arrangement, such that the claim
recitation is not new matter. Appeal Br. 8–11; see also Reply Br. 2–6.
However, nothing in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief persuades us that the
Examiner errs. For example, Appellant does not point to anything in the
Specification that describes Figure 4’s embodiment as one in which the
rollers do not contact each other via the continuous web.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written-description rejection
of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9
for substantially the same reasons. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–8, 10–19, and 27–34 that depend from one of the
independent claims.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

6
Rejection II—Indefiniteness rejection
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
space between the rollers and the continuous web such that the rollers do not
contact each other directly or via the continuous web.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. Independent claim 9 includes a similar recitation, and each of the other
rejected claims depends from either claim 1 or claim 9. Id.
The basis for the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection is as follows:
[Appellant’s] Figure 4 does show a space between the
rollers (21, 22), but also shows the continuous web (2a)
extending from the surface of the first roller (21) to the surface
of the second roller (22). Since the continuous web extends
from the first roller to the second roller, the rollers are
considered to contact each other via the continuous web. When
interpreting the features of claim 1 in view of . . . [Appellant’s]
[S]pecification, the features in the claim appear to contradict the
[S]pecification.
Therefore, the feature renders claim 1 vague and
indefinite because it is unclear how the invention is constructed
when the claimed features contradict the specification.
Answer 4.
The reason for the Examiner’s rejection confuses the basis for a
written-description rejection and an indefiniteness rejection. Although the
Examiner is correct that the Specification does not disclose the claimed
invention, supra, this is not determinative of whether a claim is indefinite,
i.e., unclear. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310–13 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning
is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise
unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”); see also Ex
parte McAward, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017)
(precedential) (explaining that the USPTO considers a claim indefinite when
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

7
it “contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Moreover, the
relevant claim limitation is not indefinite. This is exhibited by our
interpretation of the relevant claim limitation in the written-description
rejection. Supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 9 for substantially the same reasons. Further, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–8, 10–19, and 27–34 that
depend from one of the independent claims.
Rejection III—Obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 9,
and their dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 10–13, 15, 27, and 32–34
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
the continuous web is frictionally held and transported at
a controlled speed via a web tensioning device arranged
upstream and downstream of the perforating station, wherein
the web tensioning device comprises two rollers upstream of
the perforating station, with a space between the rollers and the
continuous web such that the rollers do not contact each other
directly or via the continuous web.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). For the reasons set forth in
detail below, the Examiner does not support adequately that it would have
been obvious to modify Bradley, based on Anderson, to include a web
tensioning device having two rollers with a space therebetween, as
specifically claimed.12

12 We note that the Examiner bases the rejection on a claim interpretation of
an indefinite claim, which is not entirely consistent with our interpretation.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection solely because the Examiner’s
rationale and supporting findings are inadequate.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

8
In Bradley, according to the Examiner and using the claim’s
nomenclature, “continuous web” W is transported through “perforating
station” 101 and 112, but Bradley does not use a web tensioning device
comprising two rollers with a space therebetween, as specifically claimed.
Non-Final Action 8. Instead, transportation of “continuous web” W occurs
because of nips between various rollers—for example, the nip between
rollers 101 and 102, the nip between rollers 102 and 104, etc. According to
the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to have modified the
perforating station of Bradley by incorporating a tensioning
device upstream and downstream of the perforating station[,]
since page 5 paragraph 45 of Anderson . . . states such a
modification would help enhance the physical properties of the
continuous web when being perforated.
Non-Final Action 10; see also Answer 9–10. The cited paragraph of
Anderson reads as follows:
[0045] Referring to F[igures] 1–2, for instance, an
exemplary aperturing process is illustrated. As shown, a
nonwoven web 20 is initially stretched by passing it through
two sets of S-roll arrangements, a first S-roll arrangement 15
and a second S-roll arrangement 17. Each S-roll arrangement
contains at least two closely positioned, counter rotating rolls
that advance the nonwoven web 20 without significant slippage.
The peripheral linear speed of the second S-roll arrangement 17
is controlled to be faster than the linear speed of the first S-roll
arrangement 15 so that the nonwoven web 20 is stretched in the
machine direction. The degree of stretch may vary, such as up
to about 50%, in some embodiments from about 5% to
about 40%, and in some embodiments, from about 10% to
about 30%. The degree of stretch is calculated by dividing the
difference in the stretched dimension, e.g., width, between the
initial nonwoven web and the stretched nonwoven web by the
initial dimension of the nonwoven web. Although optional,
stretching can optimize and enhance physical properties in the
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

9
fabric including, but not limited to, softness, bulk, stretchability
and recovery, permeability, basis weight, density, and liquid
holding capacity. Another example of a suitable stretching
process is a tenter frame process that utilizes a gripping device,
e.g., clips, to hold the edges of the nonwoven and apply the
stretching force, typically in the cross-machine direction.
Anderson ¶ 45 (emphases added). Thus, according to Anderson, the
enhancement of the “continuous web’s” physical properties results from
Anderson’s “tensioning device” stretching the “continuous web.”
To the extent that the Examiner proposes to modify Bradley,
reasoning that one would use Anderson’s “tensioning device” to stretch
Bradley’s “continuous web,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
does not support adequately that there is any reason to “stretch[] . . . the
perforated sheets of Bradley” the same way that Anderson stretches its
“spunbond web.” Reply Br. 9; id. at 7 (citations omitted). Conversely, to
the extent that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Bradley relies on
using Anderson’s “tensioning device” in Bradley without stretching
Bradley’s “continuous web,” then the Examiner does not support adequately
that there would be any reason to use Anderson’s “tensioning device.” This
is because, according to the portion of Anderson on which the Examiner
relies, the reason to use Anderson’s “tensioning device” is to stretch a
“continuous web” to thereby provide the described enhanced physical
properties.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, or its dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 27, and 32–34, based
on Bradley and Anderson. Independent claim 9 includes a similar recitation
as claim 1, and the Examiner’s reasoning supporting claim 9’s rejection is
similar to that supporting claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

10
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, or its dependent
claims 10–13 and 15, based on Bradley and Anderson.
Rejections IV–VIII—Obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–4,
7, 14, 19, and 28–31
Claims 2–4, 7, 14, 19, and 28–31 depend from independent claims 1
and 9. The Examiner does not rely on either Craig, Cole, Baggot, DuFresne,
or Fischer to disclose anything that remedies the above-discussed deficiency
in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or 9. Accordingly, we do
not sustain any of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 2–4, 7, 14, 19, and 28–31.
Rejection IX—Obviousness rejection of independent claim 9
As we discuss above, independent claim 9 includes a similar recitation
as claim 1—i.e., claim 9 recites “the web tensioning device comprises two
rollers upstream of the perforating station, with a space between the rollers
and the continuous web such that the rollers do not contact each other
directly or via the continuous web.” Appeal Br., Claims App. For the
reasons set forth below, the Examiner does not support adequately that it
would have been obvious to modify Banks, based on Anderson, to include a
web tensioning device having two rollers with a space therebetween, as
specifically claimed.13
In Banks, according to the Examiner and using the claim’s
nomenclature, “continuous web” 8, 9 is transported through “perforating
station” 11, 12, 19, and 20, but Banks does not use a web tensioning device

13 As we state above, the Examiner bases the rejection on a claim
interpretation of an indefinite claim, which is not entirely consistent with our
interpretation. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection solely because the
Examiner’s rationale and supporting findings are inadequate.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

11
comprising two rollers with a space therebetween, as specifically claimed.
Non-Final Action 19–20. Instead, in Banks transportation of “continuous
web” 8, 9 occurs because of nips between various rollers—for example, the
nip between rollers 11 and 19, the nip between rollers 15 and 16, etc.
According to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to have modified the
perforating station of Banks by incorporating a tensioning
device upstream and downstream of . . . [Banks’s] perforating
station[,] since page 5 paragraph 45 of Anderson . . . states such
a modification would help enhance the physical properties of
the continuous web when being perforated.
Non-Final Action 20. As we set forth above, the cited paragraph of
Anderson reads as follows:
[0045] Referring to F[igures] 1–2, for instance, an
exemplary aperturing process is illustrated. As shown, a
nonwoven web 20 is initially stretched by passing it through
two sets of S-roll arrangements, a first S-roll arrangement 15
and a second S-roll arrangement 17. Each S-roll arrangement
contains at least two closely positioned, counter rotating rolls
that advance the nonwoven web 20 without significant slippage.
The peripheral linear speed of the second S-roll arrangement 17
is controlled to be faster than the linear speed of the first S-roll
arrangement 15 so that the nonwoven web 20 is stretched in the
machine direction. The degree of stretch may vary, such as up
to about 50%, in some embodiments from about 5% to
about 40%, and in some embodiments, from about 10% to
about 30%. The degree of stretch is calculated by dividing the
difference in the stretched dimension, e.g., width, between the
initial nonwoven web and the stretched nonwoven web by the
initial dimension of the nonwoven web. Although optional,
stretching can optimize and enhance physical properties in the
fabric including, but not limited to, softness, bulk, stretchability
and recovery, permeability, basis weight, density, and liquid
holding capacity. Another example of a suitable stretching
process is a tenter frame process that utilizes a gripping device,
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

12
e.g., clips, to hold the edges of the nonwoven and apply the
stretching force, typically in the cross-machine direction.
Anderson ¶ 45 (emphases added). Thus, the portion of Anderson on which
the Examiner relies describes that the enhancement of physical properties
results from using Anderson’s “tensioning device” to stretch a “continuous
web.”
To the extent that the Examiner proposes to modify Banks, reasoning
that one would use Anderson’s “tensioning device” to stretch Banks’s
“continuous web,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
support adequately that one would “stretch[] . . . the perforated sheets of
facial tissue of Banks.” Reply Br. 11. Conversely, to the extent that the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Banks relies on using Anderson’s
“tensioning device” in Banks without stretching Banks’s “continuous web,”
then the Examiner does not support adequately that there would be any
reason to use Anderson’s “tensioning device.” This is because, according to
the portion of Anderson on which the Examiner relies, the reason to use
Anderson’s “tensioning device” is to stretch a “continuous web” to thereby
provide the described enhanced physical properties.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 9, based on Banks and Anderson.
Rejections X and XI—Obviousness rejections of dependent claims 16–
18
Claims 16–18 depend from independent claim 9. The Examiner does
not rely on either Summerfield or White to disclose anything that remedies
the above deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 9 based, in part,
on Banks. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of any of dependent claims 16–19.
Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

13
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s written-description rejection.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s indefiniteness and obviousness
rejections.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–19, 27–34 112(a) Written description 1–19,
27–34

1–19, 27–34 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–19, 27–34
1, 5, 6, 8–13,
15, 27, 32–34
103 Bradley, Anderson 1, 5, 6, 8–
13, 15, 27,
32–34
2–4 103 Bradley, Anderson,
Craig
2–4
7 103 Bradley, Anderson,
Cole
7
14 103 Bradley, Anderson,
Baggot
14
19 103 Bradley, Anderson,
DuFresne
19
28–31 103 Bradley, Anderson,
Fischer
28–31
9 103 Banks, Anderson 9
16, 17 103 Banks, Anderson,
Summerfield
16, 17
18 103 Banks, Anderson,
Summerfield,
White
18
Overall
Outcome
1–19,
27–34

Appeal 2020-001670
Application 14/236,147

14
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED