Ex Parte DYKSTRA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

14744518 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/744,518 06/19/2015
27752 7590 11/28/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Richard DYKSTRA
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.
13884 8845
EXAMINER
HARDEE, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2018 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 ROBERT RICHARD DYKSTRA,
LISA GRACE FRENTZEL, and
RICHARD ALBERT HUDDLESTON
Appeal2018-001552
Application 14/744,518
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-001552
Application 14/744,518
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims
17, 19, 21-27, 29, and 31-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a packaged composition for treating
laundry. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
17. A packaged composition compnsmg a plurality of
particles, wherein said particles comprise:
a carrier; and
perfume;
wherein each of said particles has a density less than about
0.95 g/cm3;
wherein each of said particles has a mass between about
0.1 mg to about 5 g;
wherein each of said particles has a maximum dimension
of less than about 10 mm;
wherein said particles comprise occlusions of gas; and
wherein said occlusions have an effective diameter
between about 1 micron to about 2000 microns.
Claims Appendix (App. Br. 6).
1 The real parties in interest are identified as The Procter & Gamble
Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. Appeal Brief of August 18, 2017. ("App.
Br."), 1.
2 Final Office Action of March 28, 2017 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we
also refer to the Examiner's Answer of September 29, 2017 ("Ans.") and the
Reply Brief of November 29, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-001552
Application 14/744,518
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cutrona
Batchelor
WO 2009/047126 A2 April 16, 2009
WO 2009/047127 Al April 16, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 17, 19, 21-27, 29, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cutrona and Batchelor. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Claim 17
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner acknowledges the "deficiency" in
the prior art teaching for the "occlusions [that] have an effective diameter
between about 1 micron to about 2000 microns" as recited in claim 1 7. Ans.
4. The Examiner, however, finds that Cutrona describes that "in the
manufacturing stage" of a film which is in tum used to make lamellar visual
cues for a laundry detergent, "inclusion of porosity" may be achieved "by
means of large light diffusing bubbles of gas beaten in to the mixture during
film making." Cutrona at 4:25-30, 17:8-11; see also Ans. 3 (citing Cutrona
pg. 17). Based on Cutrona's statement that the "bubbles can be nano-
bubbles," the Examiner finds that such prior art bubbles "may be larger"
than nanobubbles which would include "bubbles in the micron range or
larger." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that the prior art teaching of
the film having a thickness of less than 500 microns or less than 200 microns
supports the obviousness rejection. Id.
3
Appeal2018-001552
Application 14/744,518
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner carries
the burden of showing that each and every limitation of the claim is
described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on
the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 83 7 F .2d
1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In this case, the record before us does not show the evidentiary
support for the Examiner's finding that the prior art nano-bubbles "may be
larger" and therefore would be "in the micron range or larger." See Final
Act. 3 (stating so without citation to evidence in the record). The Examiner
does not address Appellants' argument that Cutrona describes nano-bubbles
in the context of manufacturing a film for making a laundry end product and
does not explain why these nano-bubbles would necessarily structurally
remain in the recited end product. Compare App. Br. 4, with Ans. 3. While
the Examiner directs us to the manufacturing of the film having certain
thickness, the record before us does not adequately show why the thickness
of the film ranging from 200 micrometers to 500 micrometers would
necessarily lead a skilled artisan to the recited "effective diameter" of the
"occlusions." See Ans. 4.
Based on the foregoing, the record before us does not show that every
limitation of claim 17 is taught or suggested in the prior art. The rejection of
claim 17 is reversed. The rejection of dependent claims 19 and 21-26 is
reversed based on their dependency from claim 1 7. The rejection of
independent claims 27 and 36 and their respective claims is reversed for the
same reason.
4
Appeal2018-001552
Application 14/744,518
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5