Ex Parte Chhabra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2018

14012084 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2018)

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.
14/012,084 08/28/2013 Rajeev Chhabra 11582C 7935
27752 7590 01/11/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2018 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 RAJEEV CHHABRA, CALVIN HOI WUNG CHENG,
OLAF ERIK ALEXANDER ISELE, and DEEANN LING NELSON
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rajeev Chhabra et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Isele (US 2006/0014460 Al, pub. Jan. 19, 2006), Catalan (US
2006/0189956 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006), and Johnson (US 2008/0093778
Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2008).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Adv. Act. 1.
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An absorbent article to be worn about the lower torso, the
absorbent article comprising:
a chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an
absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the
backsheet; and
a pair of longitudinal barrier cuffs attached to the chassis,
each longitudinal barrier cuff formed of a web of material, the
web of material comprising:
a first nonwoven component layer comprising
fibers having an average diameter in the range of about 8
microns to about 30 microns;
a second nonwoven component layer comprising
fibers having a number-average diameter of less than
about 1 micron, a mass-average diameter of less than
about 1.5 microns, and a ratio of the mass-average
diameter to the number-average diameter less than about
2; and
a third nonwoven component layer comprising
fibers having an average diameter in the range of about 8
microns to about 30 microns;
wherein the second nonwoven component layer is
disposed intermediate the first nonwoven component
layer and the third nonwoven component layer.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue claims 1—20 together. See Appeal Br. 6—12. We
select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 2—20 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Isele, Catalan, and Johnson disclose or
suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 5—7. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Isele discloses “a second nonwoven component
2
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
layer comprising 100% fibers having an average diameter of 100
nanometers.” Id. at 6 (citing || 44, 46). The Examiner explains that:
[Although lsele does not disclose the characterization of
the nanofiber layer in terms of number-average diameter and
mass-average diameter, if about 100% of the fibers are less than
1 micron, and the average diameter is closer to 100 nanometers
as disclosed by lsele, the number-average diameter and mass-
average diameter would appear to both be under 1 micron.
Id. The Examiner further finds that “Johnson teaches that it was known in
the art of composite webs at the time of invention to provide nanofiber
layers with more than 99% sub-micron fibers with average diameter of 100
nanometers, wherein the standard deviation of the fiber diameter distribution
is less than about 300 nanometers, such as 150 nm.” Id. (citing Johnson
62, 68). Thus, we understand the rejection to combine Isele’s teaching of
a layer comprising 100% fibers having an average diameter of 100
nanometers with Johnson’s teaching of a standard deviation of the fiber
diameter distribution of 150 nm.
Noting that “[t]he Office Action selects a single number at the lower
end of the recited range of fiber diameters,” Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s reasoning is in error. Appeal Br. 7.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner
notes that since a nanofiber web with fibers of 100—300 nm is
explicitly disclosed by lsele as an example that produces
desirable results, see lsele Fig. 1, paras [0060—61], in addition
to 100 nm being explicitly taught as an endpoint for preferable
fiber diameters in lsele para [0046], the Appellant’s insinuation
that the Examiner improperly chose a particular average
diameter range (i.e. diameters closer to 100 nm) is unfounded.
Ans. 3. We further note that lsele explicitly describes a web that “could
have more than about 90% or about 100% of the fibers having a diameter of
3
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
less than about one micron.” Isele 144. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ allegation is unfounded.
In addition, Appellants argue that:
it is not necessarily the case that a fiber layer having about
100% of the fibers less than 1 micron, and the average diameter
closer to 100 nanometers (0.1 micron) would have the number-
average diameter and the mass-average diameter as taught by
the Subject Application and as recited in claims 1,13, and 17.
Appeal Br. 8. In support of this argument, Appellants direct our attention to
the Declaration (hereinafter “Declaration”) of Rajeev Chhabra and Olaf Isele
(Declarants) dated April 17, 2015.
In the Declaration, Declarants compare and contrast two different sets
of simulations. See generally Declaration. The first set of simulations use
materials with “100% [of their] fibers below 1000 nanometer with number
average diameter about 100 nanometer” and a “standard deviation less than
about 300 nanometer.” Id. 122. The second set of simulations use materials
with 100% of their fibers sub-micron and a polydispersity ratio less than 2.
Id. 127. According to Declarants, these simulations show that the proposed
combination would not result in a polydispersity ratio (i.e., a ratio of the
mass-average diameter to the number-average diameter) less than 2 as
required by claim 1.
However, the characteristics of the materials used in the first set of
simulations are not commensurate in scope with the characteristics relied
upon in the rejection. Specifically, as discussed supra, the rejection relies on
a standard deviation of less than 150 nm, as opposed to the standard
deviation of less than 300 nm used in the simulations. Johnson specifically
discloses this standard deviation. See, e.g., Johnson | 68. Therefore, the
Examiner’s reliance on this standard deviation is not arbitrary and is
4
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, it appears from the
data in the second set of simulations that the factor that determines the
polydispersity ratio is the measured submicron, not the standard deviation.
See Declaration Table 1. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are
unconvincing.
Noting that “[t]he Office Action also cited the example in paragraph
[0068] which provides a mean diameter of 0.45 micron (450 nm), standard
deviation of 0.15 micron (150 nm), and fiber diameter range from 0.1
micron (100 nm) to 0.85 micron (850 nm),” Appellants argue that “Isele in
view of Johnson merely discloses a range of fiber sub-micron diameters and
fails to recognize the characteristics and distribution of the individual fibers
and the effect this has on the nano-fiber layer.” Appeal Br. 10.
However, as noted above, Isele specifically describes an embodiment
having wherein “100% of the fibers having a diameter of less than about one
micron.” Isele 144. Further, as noted by Appellants and discussed supra,
Johnson describes a specific example wherein the standard deviation is 150
nm. Johnson | 68. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, Isele describes
embodiments having 100% of the fibers having a diameter of less than about
one micron as “producing enhanced barrier qualities.” Ans. 4; see also Isele
144. Similarly, and again as noted by the Examiner,
Johnson explicitly recognizes the effect that fiber size and fiber
size distribution have on the nano-fiber layer (i.e. Johnson
explicitly teaches/recognizes the importance high quality, low
defect sub-micro fibers (para [0011]), that is, those with a good
[i.e., narrow] fiber [size] distribution per Johnson para [0061],
in order to produce a high quality nonwoven fibrous product
having improved barrier qualities (para [0011]).
5
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
Ans. 5. Of particular note, Appellants’ own Specification recognizes that
Johnson’s “methods and systems” provide “uniform and narrow fiber
distribution, reduced or minimal fiber defects such as unfiberized polymer
melt (generally called ‘shots’), fly, and dust, for example.” Spec. 11. Thus,
Appellants’ argument is unconvincing.
Next, Appellants argue that “Catalan fails to cure the aforementioned
deficiencies” in Isele and Johnson. Appeal Br. 10. As we find no such
deficiencies, Appellants’ argument is unconvincing.
Finally, Appellants contend that “the Office Action fails to state
sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness and is therefore conclusory.” Appeal
Br. 11. In support of this contention, Appellants argue that “as supported by
the Chhabra declaration, based on the combination of Isele and Johnson it is
not mathematically and statistically likely to arrive at a polydispersity of less
than 2.” Appeal Br. 12. However, as discussed supra, Table 1 in the
Declaration suggests that the measured micron size not the standard
deviation is responsible for the claimed polydispersity. Further, as also
discussed supra, the rejection relies on specific examples in both Isele and
Johnson which fall within the claimed ranges. Appellants do not explain
such explicit disclosure would not suggest the proposed combination.
Moreover, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
that “where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art,
finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the
art.” Final Act. 6—7. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2—20, which fall therewith.
6
Appeal 2016-007379
Application 14/012,084
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7