Ex Parte Aubourg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

11304038 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DELPHINE E. AUBOURG, ERIC B. LAUGHLIN,
SCOTT J. TUMAN and BRIDGET K. WARMKA
________________

Appeal 2010-000347
Application 11/304,038
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1
decision rejecting claims 1, 2 and 9-16, at least one of which is twice 2
rejected. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. 3
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krasno (US 2,724,847, issued Nov. 29,4

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as 3M Company.
Appeal No. 2010-000347
Application No. 11/304,038

2
1955) and Endo (JP 2000-342511 A, publ. Dec. 12, 2000).2 Claims 3-8 and 1
17-19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM. 3
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal: 4
1. A lint remover assembly comprising: 5
a stack of lint remover sheets having a first 6
edge, second edge opposite the first edge, a third 7
edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge, 8
wherein each sheet comprises a top surface, a 9
bottom surface opposite the top surface, an 10
adhesive on a portion of the top surface, a first 11
uncoated adhesive-free region adjacent the third 12
edge on the top surface and a second uncoated 13
adhesive-free region adjacent the fourth edge on 14
the top surface, wherein the bottom surface of at 15
least one sheet adheres to the top surface of a 16
subsequent sheet to form the stack of lint remover 17
sheets having a top surface, bottom surface, and 18
sidewall adjacent each edge; and 19
a support package comprising a backing for 20
receiving the bottom surface of the stack, a first 21
side support capable of covering a portion of the 22
sidewall adjacent the first edge of each sheet of the 23
stack and a portion of the top surface of the stack, 24
a second side support capable of covering a portion 25
of the sidewall adjacent the second edge of each 26
sheet of the stack and a portion of the top surface 27
of the stack such that no adhesive surfaces are 28
exposed when the first side support and second 29
side support are closed, wherein at least a portion 30
of the first side support or the second side support 31

2 References in this opinion to “Endo” will be to the English translation
prepared in or around June 2009 by Schreiber Translations, Inc. and entered
into the record.
Appeal No. 2010-000347
Application No. 11/304,038

3
includes a release treatment on a side adjacent the 1
top surface of the stack. 2
3
ISSUES 4
The Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 9-16 as a group. 5
(See Br. 7). Independent claim 1 is representative. Only issues and findings 6
of fact contested by the Appellants have been considered. See Ex parte 7
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010). This appeal turns on one 8
issue: 9
Do the evidence and technical reasoning underlying the 10
rejection of claim 1 adequately support the conclusion that a 11
lint remover assembly including a stack of sheets, each having a 12
first uncoated adhesive-free region adjacent the third edge on 13
the top surface and a second uncoated adhesive-free region 14
adjacent the fourth edge on the top surface; and a support 15
package having first and second side supports capable of 16
covering portions of the top surface of the stack such that no 17
adhesive surfaces are exposed when the first side support and 18
second side support are closed, would have been obvious? (Br. 19
7) 20
21
FINDINGS OF FACT 22
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 23
preponderance of the evidence. 24
1. We adopt the Examiner’s finding that: 25
Krasno discloses a lint remover (A) comprising a 26
stack of lint remover sheets (T) including an 27
Appeal No. 2010-000347
Application No. 11/304,038

4
adhesive area on an upper surface thereof and a 1
non-adhesive portion (16) and further including a 2
support package (P) comprising a backing (10) on 3
which the stack is attached and the package further 4
including first and second (12, 13) side supports. 5
(Ans. 3; see also Krasno, col. 2, ll. 9-21 and 26-34). 6
2. Krasno teaches that, “[t]o facilitate the stripping of one leaf 7
from the other, each leaf has secured thereto a binding or reinforcing strip 16 8
at one edge thereof.” (Krasno, col. 2, ll. 34-40; see also id., fig. 5). 9
3. Krasno discloses that, “[b]y referring to Figure 1, it can be seen 10
that when the flaps 12 and 13 are folded over the pad and interconnected by 11
the tongue 15 that a completely closed article is had, which can be readily 12
carried in the pocket or pocketbook.” (Krasno, col. 2, ll. 41-44). As 13
depicted in Figures 1 and 6 of Krasno, the flaps 12, 13 cover portions of the 14
top surface of the stack T such that no adhesive surfaces are exposed when 15
the flaps 12, 13 are closed. 16
4. Krasno additionally teaches that, “[f]rom the foregoing 17
description, it can be seen that . . . the construction [of the lint removing 18
device described by Krasno] is such that the adhesive tape is normally 19
protected by the flaps of the package.” (Krasno, col. 2, ll. 63-69). 20
5. We adopt the Examiner’s finding that Endo “discloses a stack 21
(1) of adhesive sheets each having opposed uncoated adhesive-free regions 22
(9 and 9' and described in lines 13-18 of page 5 of the translation).” (Ans. 3; 23
see also Endo, fig. 2). 24
6. Krasno and Endo each teach the use of their adhesive tapes or 25
papers for removing particulates from surfaces such as clothing. (See 26
Krasno, col. 2, ll. 63-69; Endo, para. 0001. 27
Appeal No. 2010-000347
Application No. 11/304,038

5
ANALYSIS 1
“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that 2
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the 3
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR 4
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Krasno and Endo each 5
describe stacks of adhesive tapes or papers for use in removing particulates 6
from surfaces such as clothing. (FF 6). As the Examiner recognizes, one of 7
ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted Endo’s sheets of 8
adhesive paper, as depicted in Figure 2 of Endo, for Krasno’s stack T of 9
adhesive tapes. The resulting structure would have included a stack of 10
adhesive papers each having a first uncoated adhesive-free region adjacent 11
the third edge on the top surface and a second uncoated adhesive-free region 12
adjacent the fourth edge on the top surface. (See FF 5). The Appellants 13
suggest no reason why such a substitution might have required more than 14
ordinary skill in the art to implement. Neither do the Appellants suggest any 15
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art might have found the effects 16
yielded by the substitution unpredictable. 17
Krasno describes the flaps 12, 13 of the package P as being foldable 18
over the pad or stack T of lint remover sheets so as to form a closed article. 19
(FF 3). Krasno teaches that the flaps 12, 13 normally protect the stack T. 20
(FF 4). Krasno’s teachings would have provided one of ordinary skill in the 21
art reason to preserve this feature when modifying the adhesive tapes of 22
Krasno’s stack T in view of the teachings of Endo. In other words, Krasno’s 23
teachings would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art reason to 24
preserve the capability of the flaps or side supports 12, 13 to cover portions 25
Appeal No. 2010-000347
Application No. 11/304,038

6
of the top surface of the stack T such that no adhesive surfaces were exposed 1
when the flaps 12, 13 were closed. 2
3
DECISION 4
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 9-16. 5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 6
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2009). 7
8
AFFIRMED 9
10
11
mls 12