Anders Stråhlin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2020

2019006551 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
13/823,307 06/06/2013 Anders Stråhlin 1018798-000694 4860
105718 7590 09/15/2020
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
RANDALL, JR., KELVIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2020 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 STRÅHLIN, GUNILLA HIMMELMANN,
ROBERT KLING, PETER REHNSTRÖM, and JERRY SVEDLUND
____________

Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9–17, and 23–27 in this
application.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Essity Hygiene and Health
Aktiebolag as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and it recites, with our
emphases added:
1. A tissue dispensing system, comprising:
a tissue holder arranged to receive a tissue product to be
dispensed from the tissue holder, the tissue holder comprising
at least one sensor collection unit arranged on the tissue holder,
the at least one sensor collection unit comprising:
at least one sensor collection processing unit,
at least one communication interface,
at least two sensor elements, each of the two sensor
elements comprising a light source and a light detector
and the two sensor elements being separated a distance
from each other in at least one direction relative to the
tissue product, each of the at least two sensor elements is
arranged to transmit light from the light source towards
the tissue product and detect reflected light in the light
detector, and
wherein the at least one sensor collection processing
unit is configured such that sensing intervals at which the
at least the two sensor elements transmit light is
adjustable, and wherein an interval at which the at least
one communication interface communicates results of the
at least two sensor elements is adjustable;
a data collection unit comprising at least one data collection
processing unit and a communication unit configured to receive
difference signals from the at least one sensor collection unit;
and
a third processing unit configured to receive and analyze
data from the communication unit and determine a level of the
tissue product in the tissue holder; and
wherein the data collection unit is arranged to receive
difference signals from the at least one sensor collection unit,
and to communicate information to the third processing unit for
analysis and level determination.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1–2 (emphases added).
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

3
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
In the Final Office Action, claims 1–7, 9–17, and 23–27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,2 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 4–5. The Answer then indicates this
rejection is withdrawn as to “[c]laims 1–7, 10–7, and 23–27.” Ans. 3.
Having reviewed the rejection in the Final Office Action, we conclude the
reasoning behind the rejection applies equally to all claims 1–7, 9–17, and
23–27, so we understand this rejection to have been withdrawn as to all
claims. We therefore do not discuss this rejection further.
Claims 1–7, 10–17, and 23–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as having been obvious over Goerg (US 2010/0268381 A1, pub. Oct. 21,
2010), Schneider (US 6,314,971 B1, iss. Nov. 13, 2001), and Ramsey
(US 4,928,949, iss. May 29, 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious
over Goerg, Schneider, Ramsey, and Kling (US 2007/0236110 A1, pub.
Oct. 11, 2007).
OPINION
A. Obviousness over Goerg, Schneider, and Ramsey
(Claims 1–7, 10–17, and 23–27)
1. Claims 1–7, 10–14, and 23–27
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Ramsey discloses, in
Figure 4, a sensor collection unit comprising “multiple sensors (54),” and

2 The application on appeal is a national stage entry (completed in
June 2013) of a PCT application (filed in September 2010). Based on the
PCT application filing date, the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and
§ 103 apply here. See MPEP §§ 2159.01 & 2161.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

4
having the claimed adjustable sensing interval and adjustable
communication interval. Final Act. 7. The Examiner interprets the claim
term “adjustable” as encompassing “any instance that is more than one or
once of something happening.” Id. at 3. The Examiner then finds that, in
Ramsey, the “sensing intervals at which the at least the two sensor elements
transmit light is adjustable,” because “there are multiple detectors which are
placed at multiple adjustable locations.” Id. at 7 (citing Ramsey, 4:53–67).
The Examiner also finds Ramsey, “[i]n combination with Goerg and
Schneider teaches multiple types of adjustable (various) sensor types and
alternative multiple sensor elements at variable locations by way of
corresponding parts.” Id. The Examiner further finds that, in Ramsey, the
“interval at which the at least one communication interface communicates
results of the at least two sensor elements is adjustable,” because “the
communication interface communicates various states and thus, is
adjustable.” Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
incorporate adjustable sensing and communication intervals into the tissue
dispensing system of Goerg and Schneider, based on these teachings in
Ramsey. Id. at 7–8.
Appellant argues Ramsey does not disclose a sensor collection unit
configured to have an adjustable sensing interval, or an adjustable
communication interval. Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 3–4. As to sensing
intervals, Appellant contends “the claimed intervals relate to the frequency
at which the sensor elements transmit light,” whereas Ramsey’s two
sensors 54 “are intended to show two condition levels based on the amount
of product remaining in the dispenser,” and there is no discussion or hint in
Ramsey “that the spacing between the sensors 54 is adjustable” within the
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

5
housing shown in Figure 4. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. As to
communication intervals, Appellant contends “there is simply no discussion
of adjusting communication intervals” in the Ramsey disclosure cited by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner answers that, “although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into
the claims.” Ans. 7, 8 (citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir.
1993). As to sensing intervals, the Examiner concludes: “‘Frequency at
which the sensor elements transmit light’ has not been claimed in claim 1.”
Id. at 7. As to communication intervals, the Examiner finds Ramsey
discloses “multiple detectors which are placed at multiple adjustable
locations,” and the combined disclosures of Ramsey, Goerg, and Schneider
“teach[] multiple types of adjustable (various) sensor types and alternative
multiple sensor elements at variable locations by way of corresponding
parts.” Id. at 8.
We address the foregoing arguments, firstly as they relate to an
adjustable sensing interval, and secondly as they relate to an adjustable
communication interval.
a. Adjustable Sensing Interval
Claim 1 recites a “sensor collection processing unit is configured such
that sensing intervals at which the at least the two sensor elements transmit
light is adjustable.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. We give claim 1 the
broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

6
The Specification correspondingly describes a sensor control unit
(SCU) in which “[t]he frequency interval for the sensing . . . may be changed
according to different demands, for instance depending on type of dispenser
or battery consumption demands.” Spec. (filed Mar. 14, 2013), 7:18,
8:15–9:8. For example, the sensing “might e.g. be in intervals of 1 per
second, 1 per 10 seconds,” or have some other time interval. Id. at 9:8–11.
Thus, based on Appellant’s Specification, it is clear that claim 1
encompasses at least an adjustable time interval between each transmission
of light to perform a sensing operation. Claim interpretations excluding the
preferred embodiment are rarely, if ever, correct. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The disputed issue is whether claim 1 additionally encompasses an
adjustable spatial interval between two sensor elements. The Examiner’s
position is that spatial intervals are encompassed, and Appellant’s position is
that spatial intervals are not encompassed. We need not resolve this dispute,
because even if the Examiner is correct, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
finding that Ramsey discloses an adjustable sensing interval.
Figures 2B and 4 of Ramsey are reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

7

These Figures illustrate two different embodiments of a document feeder
module. Ramsey, 2:16–22, 3:12–13, 4:53–54. Both modules hold a stack of
documents 50 fed out of the module, one at a time, by feeder roll 44. Id. at
3:13–29.
The module of Figure 2B includes light source 56 on top wall 40
above stack 50, and light sensor 54 on bottom wall 46 below stack 50, so the
decreasing height of stack 50 permits an increasing amount of light to pass
from source 56 to sensor 54. Id. at 3:13–58. Thus, “[b]y appropriately
positioning” sensor 54 along bottom wall 46, “the sensing of predetermined
diminishment of the paper supply rather [than] absolute depletion can be
accomplished.” Id. at 3:58–4:7. In particular, sensor 54 provides a low
warning indication “[a]t a predetermined light level.” Id. at 4:1–5.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

8
The module of Figure 4 includes two light sources 56 and two light
sensors 54, “for indicating two conditions, first an early warning condition
where approximately 25–40 percent of the documents have been fed, and a
second more urgent later condition indicating that approximately 80–90
percent of the documents have been fed.” Id. at 4:53–61.
There is clearly no indication in the foregoing disclosure that the
timing of when source(s) 56 emit light, or sensor(s) 54 sense light, is
adjustable.
We, further, agree with Appellant’s argument that the foregoing
disclosure does not reflect an adjustable spatial position of light source(s) 56
on top wall 40, or of light sensor(s) 54 on bottom wall 46. At best, Ramsey
indicates that the position of sensor(s) 54 on bottom wall 46 may be selected
at the time of manufacture, based on the width of the documents forming
stack 50. Id. at 3:58–4:7. There is no indication that sensor(s) 54 is or are
thereafter “adjustable” to more than one position, as is required by claim 1.
Just as important, even if such spatial position adjustability of sensor(s) 54
were contemplated by Ramsey, this adjustability would be unrelated to the
specific requirement of claim 1 that the “sensing intervals at which the at
least the two sensor elements transmit light is adjustable” (emphasis added).
We have further considered the Examiner’s determination that
Ramsey, “[i]n combination with Goerg and Schneider,” discloses the
claimed adjustable sensing interval “by way of corresponding parts.” Final
Act. 7; Ans. 8. However, the Examiner does not explain, and we are unable
to discern, how the addition of Goerg and Schneider to the disclosure of
Ramsey discussed above might lead to the claimed adjustable sensing
interval. See Final Act. 6–8.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

9
Thus, we determine the Examiner erred in relying on Ramsey as
disclosing an adjustable sensing interval as recited in claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2–7, 10–14, and 23–27. For this first reason, we do not
sustain the rejection of these claims as having been obvious over Goerg,
Schneider, and Ramsey.
b. Adjustable Communication Interval
Claim 1 recites a “sensor collection processing unit is configured such
that . . . an interval at which the at least one communication interface
communicates . . . is adjustable.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. We give
claim 1 the broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
The Examiner construes this claim limitation as encompassing a
communication interface that “communicates various states” (Final Act. 7),
because the term “adjustable” encompasses “any instance that is more than
one or once of something happening” (id. at 3). We conclude this
construction is unreasonably broad, because it conflates what is
communicated (i.e., various states of the tissue holder) with how it is
communicated (i.e., at various intervals). The basic purpose of a sensor is to
sense and communicate different states of the sensed device or property over
the course of time. Therefore, if we were to apply the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term “adjustable,” claim 1 would cover any sensor that
is working properly, rendering this claim term essentially meaningless.
The Examiner finds Ramsey discloses an adjustable communication
interval in Figure 4 and column 4, lines 53–67. Id. at 7. The cited written
description indicates Figure 4 (which is reproduced above) illustrates:
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

10
[T]he document feeder module may be provided with a
plurality of sensors 54, driven either by ambient light or by
artificial light, located along the path of the feed line, for
indicating two conditions, first an early warning condition
where approximately 25–40 percent of the documents have
been fed, and a second more urgent later condition indicating
that approximately 80–90 percent of the documents have been
fed.
Ramsey, 4:53–67. According to the Examiner, this passage discloses an
adjustable communication interval, because “the communication interface
communicates various states.” Id.; Ans. 8. However, as discussed above,
this finding rests upon an unreasonably broad construction of the claimed
adjustable communication interval. Further, we discern no indication in the
foregoing disclosure that the interval at which Ramsey’s sensor collection
unit (i.e., light source(s) 56 and light sensor(s) 54) communicates its
collected data is adjustable.
We have further considered the Examiner’s determination that
Ramsey, “[i]n combination with Goerg and Schneider,” discloses the
claimed adjustable communication interval “by way of corresponding parts.”
Ans. 8. However, the Examiner does not explain, and we are unable to
discern, how the addition of Goerg and Schneider to the disclosure of
Ramsey discussed above might lead to the claimed adjustable
communication interval. See id. The Examiner does find in passing that
“Goerg teaches an alternative adjustable means of communication as seen in
paragraphs [0160 and 0167].” Final Act. 6–7. However, the Examiner does
not relate this finding to Ramsey’s disclosure. See id. at 6–8. Our review of
paragraphs 160 and 167 in Goerg does not reveal anything that might reflect
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

11
the interval at which Goerg’s sensor collection unit (i.e., DSU 1014)
communicates its collected data is adjustable.
Thus, we determine the Examiner erred in relying on Ramsey and
Goerg as disclosing an adjustable communication interval as recited in
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–7, 10–14, and 23–27. For this second
reason, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims as having been
obvious over Goerg, Schneider, and Ramsey.
2. Claims 15–17
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same adjustable sensing
and communication interval limitations discussed above in connection with
claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims App. 5. The Examiner’s rejection, and
Appellant’s arguments, are likewise substantially the same. See Final
Act. 8–10; Appeal Br. 19–20. For the reasons provided in connection with
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and its dependent
claims 16 and 17 as having been obvious over Goerg, Schneider, and
Ramsey.
B. Obviousness over Goerg, Schneider, Ramsey, and Kling
(Claim 9)
Independent claim 9 recites substantially the same adjustable sensing
and communication interval limitations discussed above in connection with
claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims App. 3. The Examiner’s rejection, and
Appellant’s arguments, are likewise substantially the same. See Final
Act. 11–13; Appeal Br. 15–16. For the reasons provided in connection with
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 as having been obvious
over Goerg, Schneider, Ramsey, and Kling.
Appeal 2019-006551
Application 13/823,307

12
CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7,
9–17, and 23–27, as summarized in this table:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) /
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–17,
23–27
112 ¶ 1 Written
Description3

1–7, 10–17,
23–27
103(a) Goerg, Schneider,
Ramsey
1–7, 10–17,
23–27
9 103(a) Goerg, Schneider,
Ramsey, Kling
9
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–17,
23–27
REVERSED

3 As explained above, we do not reach this rejection, because it was
withdrawn in the Answer.