Ex Parte Chatterjee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13739564 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131739,564 0111112013
27752 7590 03/28/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kumardipti Chatterjee
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.
12707 1559
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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 KUMARDIPTI CHATTERJEE and
MARK JAMES KLINE
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kline (US
2010/0280483 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2010). 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 2.
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a wearable article, such as a diaper. Spec.
1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wearable article, comprising:
a chassis having a front waist region, a rear waist region,
a landing zone disposed on the front waist region, the landing
zone comprising a first fastening system component, and
an integrally-formed, highly extensible fastening member
extending laterally from the rear waist region and having a
second fastening system component disposed thereon, wherein
the first fastening system component and the second fastening
system component are engageable and form a fastening
combination, wherein said fastening member extends from a
junction line along a stretch direction transverse to said junction
line, and ends at an outboard end, wherein said junction line
connects longitudinally outermost junction points on a first
longitudinally outermost lateral edge and a second
longitudinally outermost lateral edge, respectively, of said
fastening member, said first longitudinally outermost lateral
edge having a shorter profile beginning at said junction line and
ending at said outboard end, and said second longitudinally
outermost lateral edge having a longer profile beginning at said
junction line and ending at said outboard end; and
said fastening member further comprises:
an extensible zone bounded by inboard and outboard
extensible zone extents, the inboard extensible zone extent
having a length LEP; and
a fastener zone disposed outboard of said extensible zone
bounded by inboard and outboard fastener zone extents, the
inboard fastener zone extent having a length LFP and a
longitudinal midpoint, said fastener zone comprising said
second fastening system component, and having first and
second inboard fastener zone comers;
wherein said fastening member has an acting width WA
measured from said outboard fastening zone extent to said
inboard extensible zone extent;
2
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
said acting width is bounded by longitudinal lines WO
and WI 00, and said acting width may be divided into four
equal portions by longitudinal lines W25 at 25 % of said acting
width, W50 at 50 % of said acting width, and W75 at 75 % of
said acting width;
wherein a line perpendicular to the inboard fastener zone
extent and extending through the longitudinal midpoint thereof
intersects the inboard extensible zone extent to divide the length
LEP into longer LEPL and shorter LEPS length portions, and
the longer LEPL length portion is greater than 60 percent of
LEP.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Kline discloses all of the limitations of claim
1 except that Kline does not address "how much longer LEPL is than
LEPS." Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner finds that Kline describes "angles
.alpha. and .beta. [that] are formed by the intersection of lateral edge lines
90, 91 and lateral lines 110, 111 that are perpendicular to junction line 51"
and refers to these angles as "'fastener zone lateral edge angles."' Final Act.
5. The Examiner further finds that Kline teaches that "as a result of differing
lengths of LO and LFP" different .alpha and .beta angles are formed and that
Kline credits these angles as governing the amount of fastener zone dishing,
noting that certain ranges reduce fastener zone dishing. Id. The Examiner
reasons that conversely "[a]s the angles alpha and beta are adjusted, so
would be LEPL and LEPS." Id. at 6. Based on this reasoning, the Examiner
concludes that "absent a showing of criticality with respect to the ratio of
LEPL to LEPS (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious ...
to adjust the lengths through routine experimentation in order to achieve a[]
fastener structure that helps reduce the likelihood of fastener zone dishing."
Id. (citing MPEP § 2144.05(II)).
3
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
Appellants contend that Kline "nowhere teaches, suggests or contains
information motivating such change" to the proportional relationship
between LEPL and LEP. See Appeal Br. 8-9. In support of this contention,
Appellants argue that "[t]here is no necessary connection between
adjustment of Kline et al. angles a and B and change of the ratio
LEPL/LEP." Id. at 11. Appellants opine that "[t]o the contrary, either or
both of Kline et al. fastener zone lateral edge angles a and B can be adjusted
within the full extent of the ranges for these angles described by Kline et al.
without changing the ratio of LEPL/LEP." Id. (emphasis omitted); see also
Reply Br. 3-5.
Responding to this argument the Examiner directs our attention to
paragraph 78 of Kline as disclosing "that the angles a and B need not be the
same." Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that "changing one angle and not the
other will shift the location of the centerline of the fastening zone, thus
changing the ratio of the dimensions LEPL and LEPS." Id. Based on this
reasoning, the Examiner concludes that "[ o ]ptimizing the angles a and B of
Kline [(in this context)] wi[ll] also optimize the dimensions LEPL and
LEPS." Id.
Kline illustrates angles a and B in Figure 6 reproduced below:
4
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
l;' .. ;tf f) '~· . u
--------~------- ----,
< I
' I
' ,
Figure 6 "is a depiction of an example of a fastening member, laid flat
and viewed from above." Kline i-f 20.
Claim 1 defines LEP as the length of the extensible zone. Appeal Br.,
A-1 (Claims App.). Claim 1 further defines LFP as the length of the inboard
fastener zone. Id. In Kline's Figure 6, LEP corresponds to the length of
junction line 51 and LFP corresponds to the length between points 72 and
73. See Kline, Fig. 6. Claim 1 further requires "a line perpendicular to the
inboard fastener zone extent and extending through the longitudinal
midpoint thereof [that] intersects the inboard extensible zone extent to divide
the length LEP into longer LEPL and shorter LEPS length portions."
Appeal Br., A-2 (Claims App.).
The Examiner's reasoning is based on the proposition that if one of
angles a or B remains the same and the other angle is changed, the line
perpendicular to the inboard fastener zone extent and extending through the
5
Appeal2017-002779
Application 13/739,564
longitudinal midpoint thereof, must necessarily shift. See Ans. 4. However,
as the location of this line (and, consequently the ratio of LEPL/LEP) is
defined by the midpoint of LFP, it will remain at the same location if, for
example, the angle Bis changed by moving point 93 in Kline's Figure 6
while not moving point 73. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that
changing one of the angles a or B necessarily changes the ratio of LEPL to
LEP. Accordingly, the Examiner's reasoning is not supported by a
preponderance of evidence.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2 and 4--20, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6