Ex Parte Carlucci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

13902265 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/902,265 05/24/2013
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
Giovanni Carlucci
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.
CM3213CC 1205
EXAMINER
DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
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 GIOVANNI CARLUCCI, MAURIZIO TAMBURRO,
ALESSANDRO GAGLIARDINI, EVELINA TORO, and
P ANCRAZIO VERONESE
Appeal2018-004054
Application 13/902,265
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Procter & Gamble Company ("Appellant") 1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1, 4; Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The Procter & Gamble Company is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004054
Application 13/902,265
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to an absorbent core for
absorbent articles, for example sanitary napkins and the like." Spec., p. 1,
11. 12-13. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An absorbent core for an absorbent article, the core
comprising a substrate layer;
the substrate layer comprising a substrate layer first
surface and a substrate layer second surface;
the absorbent core further comprising a layer of
absorbent material,
the absorbent material comprising an absorbent polymer
material;
the layer of absorbent material comprising a layer of
absorbent material first surface and a layer of absorbent
material second surface;
the absorbent core further comprising a single layer of a
thermoplastic material; and
the layer of thermoplastic material comprising a layer of
thermoplastic material first surface and a layer of thermoplastic
material second surface,
wherein the layer of absorbent material second surface is
in at least partial contact with the substrate layer first surface,
wherein portions of the layer of thermoplastic material second
surface are in direct contact with the substrate layer first surface
and portions of the layer of thermoplastic material second
surface are in direct contact with the layer of absorbent material
first surface, and wherein the substrate layer comprises a
fibrous material substantially free of naturally occurring
cellulose fibers;
said absorbent article having in use a body facing surface
and a garment facing surface, wherein said substrate layer in
said absorbent core provides the function of a top layer to the
absorbent core; and
wherein the top layer to the absorbent core corresponds
to the body facing surface of the core.
2
Appeal2018-004054
Application 13/902,265
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Krautkramer
Suzuki
US 2003/0150090 Al
US 6,790,798 Bl
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
Aug. 14, 2003
Sept. 14, 2004
I. Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki. Final Act. 3---6.
II. Claims 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Krautkramer. Id. at 6-9.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that teachings from Suzuki alone renders
obvious the subject matter recited in claims 1-11, and that a combination of
teachings from Suzuki and Krautkramer renders obvious the subject matter
recited in claims 12-20. See Final Act. 3-9. Appellant argues that the
claimed absorbent core is in some way patentably distinct from the teachings
of Suzuki relied on by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 8-9.
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from
2 We note that a rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite has been withdrawn by the Examiner and thus
is not before us for review as part of the instant appeal. Ans. 2; see also
Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-004054
Application 13/902,265
Suzuki, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or the
Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is rationally
articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in light of the
Examiner's thorough responses to Appellant's arguments. See Final Act. 3-
9; Ans. 3-8.
In particular, Appellant provides a descriptive summary, including
reproductions of drawings, for various absorbent core constructions
expressly disclosed in Suzuki. See Appeal Br. 4--7 (including reproductions
of Suzuki's Figs. 2 and 16-18). Next, Appellant provides a descriptive
summary of the absorbent cores recited in independent claims 1 and 14. See
id. at 7-9 (including a reproduction of Fig. 3, which depicts an embodiment
of the core recited in claim 1; we note that Fig. 4 depicts an embodiment of
the core recited in claim 14 ). From this background, Appellant asserts that
the claimed core "utilizes the substrate layer as the body facing layer and
does not have a substrate layer serving as the garment facing layer,"
seemingly alleging a contrast between this construction and the bottom
portions of Suzuki's Figs. 17 and 18. Id. at 8.
However, particularly as clarified in the Answer, the rejections rely on
the top portions of Suzuki's Figs. 17 and 18 to render obvious the cores
claimed. See Ans. 3---6. Specifically, the Examiner explains how, based on
the cited teachings of Suzuki, "an artisan would have found it obvious to
follow the general construction of Figs. 17-18, which show starting with the
composite M (with [a] substrate layer facing up/towards the wearer) then
adding lower, garment-facing (N/M') layer(s)," to thereby form an absorbent
core as claimed. Ans. 4--5 (including an annotated reproduction of the top
4
Appeal2018-004054
Application 13/902,265
portion of Suzuki's Fig. 18, modified to include a diffusion sheet or a
backsheet in place of the originally-depicted tissue layer, as taught by the
cited portion of Suzuki ( col. 15, 1. 49 - col. 16, 1. 6) ); see also Final Act. 4
( explaining same).
Appellant does not submit a Reply Brief to assert any error with
respect to the Examiner's explanation. Moreover, we note our observation
of the abundant similarity between the structural arrangements depicted in
the Examiner's annotated reproduction of the top portion of Suzuki's Fig. 18
(discussed above) and in Appellant's Figs. 3 and 4 (depicting the cores of
claims 1 and 14, respectively).
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly we sustain the
rejections.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Krautkramer.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5