Ex Parte Calewarts et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

12979852 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/979,852 12/28/2010
23556 7590 08/03/2016
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC,
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Deborah Joy Calewarts
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.
64529410US01 3724
EXAMINER
MUSSER, BARBARA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBORAH JOY CALEWARTS, JIAN QIN,
JEFFREY F. JURENA, DONALD E. WALDROUP,
and STEPHEN M. CAMPBELL1
Appeal2015-001203
Application 12/979,852
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method of creping a nonwoven substrate
comprising the steps of applying a frothed dispersion or frothed solution of
1 Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001203
Application 12/979,852
an additive composition to a dryer surface, allowing the frothed dispersion
or frothed solution to convert to an adhesive film, bonding a nonwoven
substrate to the adhesive film, and scraping the bonded nonwoven substrate
and adhesive film from the dryer surface (independent claim 1; see also
independent claim 10).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of creping a nonwoven substrate comprising the steps of:
a) position an additive-composition applicator adjacent to a hot non-
permeable dryer surface;
b) apply a frothed dispersion or frothed solution comprising an additive
composition to the dryer surface;
c) allow the frothed dispersion or frothed solution to convert to an adhesive
film;
d) directly bond the nonwoven substrate to the adhesive film; and
e) scrape the bonded non woven substrate and adhesive film from the dryer
surface.
In the Final Action dated December 18, 2013, the Examiner
provisionally rejected claims 1, 2, and 10 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of
copending Application No. 13/330,440 which issued on December 23, 2014
as Patent No. 8,916,012 (Final Action 3).
Appellants request that this rejection be reversed on the grounds that it
is premature because no claims have been allowed in the subject or
copending application (Br. 2). As explained by the Examiner, Appellants'
reason for requesting reversal is not well taken (Ans. 5). In any event, the
request is no longer factually accurate since the copending application is
now a patent.
2
Appeal2015-001203
Application 12/979,852
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's provisional rejection of claims
1, 2, and 10.
The Examiner also rejected independent claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soerens '200 et al., (US 2010/0159200
Al, published Jun. 24, 2010; hereinafter "Soerens '200" in view of Furman
et al., (US 2008/0128101 Al; hereinafter "Furman") (Final Action 3--4) and
correspondingly rejected dependent claims 2-9 over these references alone
or in combination with additional prior art (id. at 4--6).
In contesting the§ 103(a) rejections, Appellants present arguments
specifically directed to independent claims 1 and 10 (Br. 3--4) from which
we select claim 1 as representative. Appellants present no additional
separate arguments directed to the dependent claims (id. at 4--5). As a
consequence, all claims on appeal will stand or fall with representative claim
1.
We sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1-10 for the reasons
given in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
Concerning representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Soerens
'200 discloses a method of creping a nonwoven substrate comprising the
steps of spraying a dispersion of an additive composition onto a dryer
surface thereby forming an adhesive film, bonding the nonwoven substrate
to the adhesive film, and scraping the bonded nonwoven substrate and
adhesive film from the dryer surface (Final Action 3--4 ). The Examiner
additionally finds that Soerens '200 does not disclose applying the
composition as a foam or froth as claimed but that Furman discloses foam
coating and spraying are known alternatives for applying a composition in
the creping art (id. at 4). In light of these findings, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to apply the dispersion composition of
3
Appeal2015-001203
Application 12/979,852
Soerens '200 to the dryer surface as a foamed or frothed dispersion (id.).
The Examiner further concludes that it would a been obvious to allow the
frothed dispersion to convert to an adhesive film as required by claim 1
particularly because the composition applying step of Soerens '200 includes
formation of a film on the dryer surface (id.).
Appellants point out that Furman discloses applying a composition to
a paper web by spraying or foam coating and argue that "[a]pplication
methods that might or might not be equivalent for a paper web is [sic, are]
irrelevant to whether such application methods are equivalent with respect to
a hot dryer surface" (Br. 3).
Appellants' argument lacks convincing merit. As correctly explained
by the Examiner, there appears to be no meaningful difference between
applying a composition to a paper web or a dryer surface because in either
application the composition ultimately becomes sandwiched between the
web and dryer surface (Ans. 5). Significantly, Appellants do not respond to
the Examiner's explanation (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed) and
therefore fail to identify any error in it. For these reasons, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to apply the
composition of Soerens '200 onto the dryer surface as a foamed or frothed
composition in view of Furman based on a reasonable expectation of
success.
Appellants also contend that "neither Soerens ['200] nor Furman,
alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests a frothed
dispersion ... as defined in the present application ... at, for example, page
10, line 17 to page 11, line 6" (Br. 3--4).
4
Appeal2015-001203
Application 12/979,852
Appellants' contention is not persuasive. The additive composition of
Soerens '200 is described explicitly as an aqueous dispersion (see, e.g.,
Soerens '200 i-fi-f l 07-108). In fact, the polyisoprene dispersion disclosed by
Soerens '200 at paragraph 107 is indistinguishable from the polyisoprene
dispersion disclosed by Appellants at Specification 11: 1.
Finally, Appellants argue that "neither Soerens ['200] nor Furman,
alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests allowing a frothed
dispersion ... to convert to an adhesive film [as claimed]" (Br. 4).
Again, we do not agree with Appellants. Soerens '200 expressly
discloses applying the additive composition to a dryer surface and forming a
film (see, e.g., i-f l 00). Moreover, for the reasons given by the Examiner
(see, e.g., Ans. 6), it is reasonable to believe that the composition, when
applied to the dryer surface as a froth, necessarily will convert to the film
desired by Soerens '200 and required by claim 1. This belief is reinforced
by the previously mentioned fact that Appellants' frothable compositions
include polyisoprene (Spec. l 0: 17-11: l) and the compositions of Soerens
'200 also include polyisoprene (Soerens '200 i-f 107).
In summary, Appellants' arguments do not reveal error in the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of representative claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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