Ex Parte Ferrer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13956435 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/956,435 08/01/2013
27752 7590 03/26/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John FERRER
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.
12567 1626
EXAMINER
KIDWELL, MICHELE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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 JOHN FERRER and HAN XU
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Procter & Gamble Company, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An absorbent article comprising a topsheet comprising a first
nonwoven material having a first visible element having an
Lmax dimension of greater than about 3.0mm and a Wmax
dimension of greater than about 0.3mm, a backsheet comprising
a second nonwoven material having a second visible element
having an Lmax dimension of greater than about 3.0mm and a
Wmax dimension of greater than about 0.3mm, and an absorbent
core disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet, wherein
the first visible element and the second visible element are
matching visible elements; wherein the first visible element and
the second visible element include a repeat unit cell, wherein one
cell repeats at least one time on the nonwoven material in both a
longitudinal direction and a lateral direction.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Warner (US 2011/0046591 Al, pub.
Feb. 24, 2011) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Warner.
II. Claims 2-9 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Warner.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Warner
discloses an absorbent article including, in relevant part,
2
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
a topsheet (210) comprising a first nonwoven material [0092]
having a first visible element [0005], a backsheet (212)
comprising a second nonwoven material [0091] having a
second visible element [0005], and an absorbent core (214)
disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet [0088],
wherein the first visible element and the second visible element
are matching visible elements [O 103---0104 ]; wherein the first
visible element and the second visible element include a repeat
cell unit (IG), wherein one cell repeats at least one time on the
nonwoven material in both a longitudinal and a lateral direction
as set forth in at least [O 104---0105], [0044 ], [0066], [0070] and
as shown in figures 7 and 4 D.
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner explains:
Warner provides an absorbent article that includes both a
topsheet (210) and a bottom sheet (212) formed ofnonwoven
materials [ 0091---0092]. Each of these nonwoven materials
include a visible element [0005]. The visible elements are
matching visible elements [O 103]. [0051] states that the
identical graphics (IG) is printed in a series on the substrate.
Id. at 7. The Examiner also finds that Warner's "figure 5 shows a plurality
of printed ink dots that repeat at least one time in both a longitudinal and
lateral direction." Ans. 4 (citing Warner i-f 75).
Appellant argues that "Warner does not disclose, teach or suggest
matching visible elements located on different components (e.g., topsheet,
backsheet, leg cuffs) of a single article." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant asserts
that Warner "teaches coordinating or varying graphics from article to article
as the nonwoven substrate is cut to form a portion of multiple articles," but
"does not teach matching graphics on different components of the same
article." Id. at 4 (citing Warner i-f 44). According to Appellant, "there is no
disclosure that substrates are configured in an absorbent article such that
matching graphics are provided on two different components of the same
article." Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive.
3
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
Warner discloses an absorbent article having chassis 172, which
includes backsheet 212 and topsheet 210. See Warner i-f 88. Warner
discloses that "variable graphics G and/or identical graphics IG may be
printed on any surface of the component material(s) of the backsheet." Id.
i-f 91. Warner also discloses that, "[a]s with the backsheet 212, graphics may
be printed on a substrate used as a printed component material to construct
the topsheet 210." Id. i-f 92; see also id. (disclosing that "variable graphics G
and/or identical graphics IG may be printed on any surface of the component
material(s) of the topsheet"). Warner further discloses that an absorbent
article includes "a first article graphic printed directly on at least one of the
backsheet, the absorbent core, and the topsheet." Id. i-f 9 (emphasis added).
In other words, Warner discloses that both backsheet 212 and topsheet 210
of the absorbent article may be printed with a first article graphic, which
may be variable graphics G or identical graphics IG.
Although we appreciate Appellant's observation that Warner discloses
the "printing of graphics on a substrate, where [the] substrate is divided into
components (e.g., a series oftopsheets) which are then incorporated into
individual absorbent articles" (Reply Br. 2 (citing Warner i-f 61) ), Appellant
does not persuasively explain the error in the Examiner's findings as
presented in the rejection. In particular, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's assertion that the Examiner confuses Warner's substrate 108
with an absorbent article. See Appeal Br. 4. As the Examiner explains, the
rejection does not equate Warner's substrate 108 with the absorbent article.
See Ans. 5 (explaining that "the graphics are printed on the substrates which
are, in tum, used to produce absorbent articles"). In this regard, we agree
with the Examiner that, "[ w ]hile Warner may provide for the production of a
4
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
number of absorbent articles with identical and/or distinct graphics, the
reference also sets forth a single article including identical and/ or distinct
graphics on multiple components (i.e., topsheet, backsheet, core, acquisition
layer, other diaper components and/or fastener) of the diaper." Id. at 3.
Appellant also argues that Warner fails to disclose "a repeat unit cell,
wherein one cell repeats at least one time on the nonwoven material in both
a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction," as recited in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellant asserts that
Warner's "Figure 5 shows a substrate which can be separated and
incorporated into multiple articles, and therefore the figure does not show an
article having a repeat unit cell." Reply Br. 3 (citing Warner i-f 21 ).
Appellant also asserts that "Figure 5 shows ink dots used in halftone
printing," and "[t]he dots are intentionally imperceptible and are a means of
distributing ink to provide optimal coloring of a graphic." Id. According to
Appellant, "[ t ]he skilled person would recognize that the ink dots of Fig. 5
are not equivalent to the repeat unit cell of the instant application." Id. This
argument is unconvincing.
As discussed above, Warner discloses printing a first article graphic
on both topsheet 210 and backsheet 212 of an absorbent article. See Warner
i-fi-19, 91, 92. Warner further discloses that "constant graphic printing
stations 104' and/or the variable graphic printing stations 104" may be
configured for halftone printing." Id. i-f 75. In particular, "printing plates
(1001-lOOn) on each printing station 104" are configured to print dots of ink
of each respective color on the substrate" and "may also be configured to
print the dots in rows that extend along and/or parallel to respective axes."
Id. Given that Warner discloses a graphic printed on both topsheet 210 and
5
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
backsheet 212 (i.e., matching visible elements), and specifically discloses
printing graphics with a plurality of dots in repeating rows (see Warner,
Fig. 5, i-f 75), Appellant has not persuasively explained why such a
disclosure does not anticipate the absorbent article of claim l. As the
Examiner explains, Figure 5 of Warner "shows a single dot, or unit cell,
repeating in both a longitudinal and lateral direction, to produce a desired
pattern." Ans. 5---6. Appellant does not persuasively refute the Examiner's
interpretation that Warner's repeating rows of dots constitute "a repeat unit
cell, wherein one cell repeats at least one time on the nonwoven material in
both a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction," as recited in claim 1.
See Ans. 4.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of independent claim l. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as dependent claims 10, 11, and 13-17, for which Appellant
relies on the same arguments (see Appeal Br. 7), under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Warner or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Warner.
Rejection II
In contesting the rejection of independent claim 18, and dependent
claims 2-9, 19, and 20, Appellant relies on the arguments presented for
patentability of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8. For the reasons
discussed above, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim l, and, thus, likewise do not apprise us of error with
respect to the rejection of claims 2-9 and 18-20. Accordingly, we sustain
6
Appeal2017-007308
Application 13/956,435
the rejection of claims 2-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Warner.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-20 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