Ex Parte Barnholtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

13106302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/106,302 05/12/2011
27752 7590 01/02/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Lee Barnholtz
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10857C 4972
EXAMINER
PIERCE, JEREMY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2019 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
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN LEE BARNHOLTZ, PAUL DENNIS
TROKHAN, and MICHAEL DONALD SUER
Appeal 2018-003215
Application 13/106,302
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's March
9, 2016 decision finally rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20 ("Final Act.").
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble
Company (Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2018-003215
Application 13/106,302
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure is directed to fibrous structures that exhibit a
pore volume distribution such that greater than about 50% of the total pore
volume present in the fibrous structure exists in pores of radii of from about
101 µm to about 200µm, wherein the fibrous structure contains solid
additives randomly dispersed throughout the fibrous structure (Abstract;
Spec. 11 ). Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix:
1. A non-woven fibrous structure comprising a commingled
mixture of a plurality of meltblown filaments and a plurality of
solid additives, wherein the fibrous structure exhibits at least a
bi-modal pore volume distribution such that greater than about
50% of the total pore volume present in the fibrous structure
exists in pores of radii of from about 101 µm to about 200µm,
wherein the solid additives are randomly dispersed throughout
the fibrous structure.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dunbar2 in view of Ouellette, 3
Varona, 4 and Clark. 5
II. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and further in view of
Villanueva. 6
2 Dunbar et al., US 2007/0049153 Al, published March 1, 2007.
3 Ouellette et al., US 2007/0202766 Al, published August 30, 2007.
4 Varona et al., US 2005/0148264 Al, published July 7, 2005.
5 Clark et al., US 2003/0114066 Al, published June 19, 2003.
6 Villanueva et al., US 2005/0137540 Al, published June 23, 2005.
2
Appeal 2018-003215
Application 13/106,302
III. Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and
further in view ofMackey. 7
IV. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and further in view of
Kleinsmith. 8
V. Claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and
4--19 of copending Application No. 12/917,547 ("the '547 Application"), in
view of Clark.
VI. Claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims
1, 4, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16, and 18 of copending Application No. 12/170,578
("the '578 Application"), in view of Clark.
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not challenge the provisional non-statutory double
patenting rejections (Rejections V and VI) (Br. 6). Accordingly, we
summarily affirm these rejections.
Appellants do not separately argue any of Rejections II-IV, and limit
their arguments regarding Rejection I to claim 1 (Br. 5-6). Accordingly, we
focus our analysis on the rejection of claim 1 over Dunbar in view of
Ouellette, Varona, and Clark.
7 Mackey et al., US 7,041,369 Bl, issued May 9, 2006.
8 Kleinsmith, US 2006/0086633 Al, published April 27, 2006.
3
Appeal 2018-003215
Application 13/106,302
Appellants argue that the cited art "fails to teach a fibrous structure
comprising a commingled mixture of a plurality of meltblown filaments and
a plurality of solid additives such that the solid additives are randomly
dispersed throughout the fibrous structure and such that the fibrous structure
exhibits the claimed pore volume distribution" (Br. 2). Appellants argue that
Dunbar's disclosure does not show the presence of additives distributed
within the fibrous layer, but instead are in a layer separate from the filament
layer (Br. 3-5).
However, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 10), Dunbar specifically
teaches that its textured non-woven wiper material can include one or more
additional materials to provide additional benefits (Dunbar ,r 63). Moreover,
Dunbar explicitly states that "it may be desirable to include one or more
other materials or layers in the three-dimensionally textured nonwoven
wiper material to provide other functional benefits" (Dunbar ,r 64 ). Thus,
Dunbar teaches that its non-woven wiper material can include "other
materials or layers" (id.), which would have taught to one of skill in the art
that such other material is not only included in a separate layer, as argued by
Appellants, but may also be included in the textured non-woven wiper
material.
Thus, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner's finding that "Dunbar teaches that the nonwoven
fabric can further include a plurality of solid additives, such as absorbent
pulp fibers" (Ans. 3). Accordingly, Appellants have not demonstrated
reversible error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2018-003215
Application 13/106,302
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 12-14, and 16-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Ouellette,
Varona, and Clark.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and
further in view of Villanueva.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and further
in view of Mackey.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Ouellette, Varona, and Clark, and
further in view of Kleinsmith.
We AFFIRM the provisional rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20
on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 2, and 4--19
the '54 7 Application in view of Clark.
We AFFIRM the provisional rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20
on the ground ofnonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10,
12-14, 16, and 18 of the '578 Application in view of Clark.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5