Ex Parte Boutique et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

12881276 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
12/881,276 09/14/2010 Jean-Pol Boutique 11447 1784
27752 7590 04/28/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KHAN, AMINA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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 JEAN-POL BOUTIQUE, LUC MARIE WILLY LIEVENS,
VINCENZO GUIDA, and FREDERIK VANDENBERGHE
Appeal 2016-005616
Application 12/881,2761
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 22, 23, and 25—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is generally directed to an external
structuring system for liquid and gel-form laundry detergents. App. Br. 1—2.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants the Real Party in Interest is The Procter &
Gamble Company of Cincinnati Ohio. Appeal Brief filed October 2, 2015
(“App. Br.”), 1.
Appeal 2016-005616
Application 12/881,276
1. An external structuring system for liquid and gel-form
laundry detergents comprising by weight percentage:
a. from about 2 to about 10 % of crystals of a glyceride
which is hydrogenated castor oil having a melting
temperature of from 40 °C to 100 °C;
b. from about 2 to about 10% of an alkanolamine,
wherein said alkanolamine is monoethanolamine; and
c. from about 5 to about 50% of the anion of an
alkylbenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant;
wherein said alkanolamine is present in an amount at
least balancing the charge of the anion form of said anionic
alkylbenzene sulfonate surfactant;
wherein said structuring system is substantially free from
monovalent and divalent inorganic metal ions;
wherein the external structuring system is free of
nonionic surfactant; wherein the external structuring system is
free from soap and fatty acids; and
wherein the external structuring system is boron-free; and
wherein the external structuring system further comprises
from 30% to 90% water.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants request review of the following rejections set forth in the Final
Office Action entered December 18,2014 (“Final Act.”), which the Examiner
maintains in the Answer entered March 30,2016 (“Ans.”):
Claims 1,22, and 25—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kouvroukoglou et al. (US 2006/0276364 Al, published December 7, 2006);
Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kouvroukoglou in view of Elsik et al. (US 2004/0009882 Al, published
January 15, 2004); and
Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kouvroukoglou in view of Metrot et al. (US 2004/0058845 Al, published
March 25, 2004) and Barry et al. (US 2005/0043200 Al, published February
24, 2005).
2
Appeal 2016-005616
Application 12/881,276
DISCUSSION
After review of the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 22, 23, and 25—30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief. We add the
following discussion primarily for emphasis.
We begin our analysis by construing claim 1 in light of the description
provided in Appellants’ Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (During prosecution of patent
applications, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification . . . Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.”).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, an external structuring system (ESS) for
liquid and gel-form laundry detergents that comprises crystals of
hydrogenated castor oil (HCO), monoethanolamine, and an alklybenzene
sulfonate anionic surfactant. Appellants’ Specification defines the phrase
“external structuring system” or ESS as “a selected compound or mixture of
compounds which provide structure to a detergent composition
independently from, or extrinsic from, any structuring effect of the detersive
surfactants of the composition.” Spec. 4,11. 2—5. Appellants’ Specification
also explains that the external structuring system is provided as a “premix”
that can be added to a liquid laundry detergent composition. Spec. 2,1. 31—
3,1. 1; 2,11. 24—26.
Appellants’ Specification indicates that the external structuring
system premix is prepared by combining all of the components of the
external structuring system, including HCO, monoethanolamine, and
alklybenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant, emulsifying the HCO by
3
Appeal 2016-005616
Application 12/881,276
increasing the temperature of the premix, and cooling the premix. Spec. 2,
11. 24—28; 16,1. 22—18,1. 2. Appellants’ Specification explains that
crystallization of the HCO is believed to occur during cooling of the external
structuring system premix. Spec. 17,11. 30—32. Appellants’ Specification
further indicates that microscopic examination of the external structuring
system premix and of detergents containing it revealed a uniform dispersion
of threadlike or rod-like structures of crystallized HCO. Spec. 32,11. 24—26.
Adopting a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we construe the external structuring system (ESS) recited in
claim 1 to comprise a mixture of crystals of hydrogenated castor oil (HCO),
monoethanolamine, and an alklybenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant that
can be added to liquid and gel-form laundry detergents.
The Examiner finds that Kouvroukoglou discloses a liquid detergent
that comprises HCO, monoethanolamine, and a dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
surfactant. Final Act. 4; Kouvroukoglou H 6, 8, 27, 42. However, the
Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Kouvroukoglou of crystals of
HCO. Nor does the Examiner identify any disclosure in Kouvroukoglou of
an external structuring system component added to the liquid detergent that
comprises crystals of hydrogenated castor oil (HCO) monoethanolamine,
and an alklybenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant, as required by claim 1 as
we have interpreted it. Instead, Kouvroukoglou discloses that the detergent
is prepared by simply combining together all of the ingredients included in
the detergent. Kouvroukoglou 141.
Moreover, the Examiner does not sufficiently address Appellants’
showing of unexpected results. Appellants provide data demonstrating that
adding an HCO external structuring system premix comprising linear
alkylbenzene sulfonic acid (LAS) neutralized with monoethanolamine
4
Appeal 2016-005616
Application 12/881,276
(MEA) to liquid detergent ingredients unexpectedly improved the
homogeneity of the detergent composition after storage for 3 months relative
to a corresponding detergent composition in which LAS in the premix was
neutralized with NaOH rather than MEA. App. Br. 9; Spec. 3,11. 8—11; 26,
1. 30—28,1. 13. Appellants provide further data demonstrating that an HCO
external structuring system containing an MEA-neutralized surfactant
exhibited better crystallization and provided greater viscosity to a detergent
composition than an HCO external structuring system containing Na-
neutralized surfactant. App. Br. 9; Declaration of Luc Lievens filed
February 3, 2014,19.
Therefore, the relied-upon data demonstrate that when an anionic
surfactant in an HCO external structuring system was neutralized with MEA
rather than Na the external structuring system unexpectedly imparted
advantageous properties to a detergent composition to which it was added.
The Examiner does not adequately address these results and instead asserts
that the data are only relevant to the particular detergent compositions tested.
Ans. 8—9. In so doing, the Examiner fails to squarely address the relied-
upon showing of unexpectedly improved properties imparted to detergent
compositions by the claimed external structuring system.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,
22, 23, and 25—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, we reverse the
rejections of claims 1, 22, 23, and 25—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5