Ex Parte Arendt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

11022323 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/022,323 12/22/2004 Jonathan K. Arendt KCX-868 (20025) 3398
22827 7590 01/27/2012
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
CHOI, PETER Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JONATHAN K. ARENDT, WALTER G. BAUER,
FRANK GERALD DRUECKE, FREDERICK J. LANG,
LESLIE B ARNETT TANERI, EUGENIO GO VARONA,
FUNG-JOU CHEN, JEFFREY DEAN LINDSAY,
JULIE MARIE BEDNARZ, CATHERINE A. NENNING,
RICHARD B. TIMMERS, and ANDREW KUO
________________

Appeal 2010-005810
Application 11/022,323
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005810
Application 11/022,323

2
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s refusal to allow claims 1, 3 through 14, 16 through 29, 46
through 53, and 55. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a cleaning product.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A cleaning product comprising:
a liquid absorbent structure comprising:
(a) a plurality of fibrous cellulosic webs; and
(b) a spunbond layer comprised of at least one
spun bond web of spunbond filaments, the spunbond layer
having a density of less than about 0.08 g/cc, a thickness of
more than about 3 millimeters, a basis weight of greater than
about 50 grams per square meter, and comprising at least 20%
by weight of the liquid absorbent structure;
a cover layer surrounding the liquid absorbent structure;
and
an abrasive layer attached to the cover layer to form an
exterior surface of the cleaning product.

The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1) claims 1, 3-13, 16-29, 46-53, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen ‘181 (US 2003/0135181 A1, published Jul. 17,
2003) and Pike (US 5,605,749, issued Feb. 25, 1997); and
2) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen ‘181
and Pike, and further in view of Chen ‘824 (US 5,865,824, issued Feb. 2,
1999).

Appeal 2010-005810
Application 11/022,323

3
With respect to rejection (1), Appellants’ arguments focus on
independent claims 1, 24, and 46. Accordingly, we address Appellants’
arguments with respect to these claims only.
With respect to rejection (2), Appellants provide no additional
argument for this rejection and instead refer to the arguments made
regarding the rejection of claim 1 in rejection (1). (Br.1 9). Therefore, the
claim under rejection (2) stands or falls with our decision regarding claim 1
in rejection (1).

REJECTION (1)
ISSUE
Did Appellants establish that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Chen ‘181 and Pike would have
rendered obvious a cleaning product having a liquid absorbent structure
containing a spunbond layer as required by claims 1, 24, and 46 within the
meaning of § 103(a)? We decide this issue in the negative.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Appellants argue that Chen fails to teach a cleaning product including
both (a) a plurality of fibrous cellulosic webs and (b) a spunbond layer as
required by claims 1, 24, and 46. (Br. 6).
Appellants also argue that Chen ‘181’s tissue web that includes
synthetic fibers cannot correspond to the claimed spunbond layer feature

1 Since none of the pages of the Appeal Brief are numbered, we number,
consecutively, the pages of the Appeal Brief starting with 1 at the page
entitled “BRIEF ON APPEAL.”
Appeal 2010-005810
Application 11/022,323

4
because a tissue web that includes synthetic fibers is different from a
spunbond layer as claimed. Id. 6 and 7.
In addition, Appellants argue that Chen ‘181’s teaching that its cover
layer may be formed from a spunbond nonwoven layer would not have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 7.
Appellants’ arguments are without persuasive merit because they fail
to address the Examiner’s stated case (Ans. 5, 10, and 14) based on
including the spunbond fiber layer as taught by Pike adjacent to Chen 181’s
tissue web in the sponge-like pad. Indeed, as correctly pointed out by the
Examiner, Appellants’ arguments focus on the individual teachings of the
references instead of focusing on the Examiner’s stated case based upon the
combined teachings of the prior art. (Ans. 17, 20, and 21).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
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).

AFFIRMED
bar