Ex Parte FINDLEY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14059500 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/059,500 10/22/2013
27752 7590 09/24/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Patrick FINDLEY
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.
12635M2 1943
EXAMINER
GOFF II, JOHN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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 DANIEL PA TRICK FINDLEY, UWE SCHNEIDER,
KAZUKI FUKUSHIMA, RONALD JOSEPH ZINK,
CLIFFORD THEODORE PAPSDORF, JASMINE MARIE BROWNE,
TODD DOUGLAS LENSER, and KAZUY A OGAWA
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
Technology Center 1700
Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-12, 14--17, 23, 25-29, and 33-
35 of Application 14/059,500 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Final Act.
(Jan. 11, 2016) 2-11. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Applicant, Procter & Gamble Co., is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to transfer assemblies of the
type useful in manufacturing. Spec. 1. The transfer assemblies described in
the present application may be useful in the manufacture of diapers. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of attaching a discrete article to a web being
conveyed over a carrier member, the method comprising:
providing a transfer assembly comprising a frame
defining a rotation axis and a transfer member comprising a
substantially flat transfer surface;
providing an input carrier member for the discrete article;
rotating the input carrier member;
rotating the transfer member about the rotation axis;
carrying the discrete article on the input carrier member;
transferring the discrete article from the input carrier
member to the transfer member;
providing a resilient member on the carrier member or on
the substantially flat transfer surface;
first applying, using the substantially flat transfer surface,
a portion of the discrete article to a portion of the web; and
second applying, using the substantially flat transfer
surface, a force to the portion of the discrete article, the portion
of the web, and the portion of the resilient member to attach the
portion of the discrete article to the portion of the web.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4--9, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25-27, 29, and 33-35 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l )2 as anticipated by Yamamoto et al. 3
Answer 2---6.
2. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Oshefsky et al. 4, in view of Satoh5 and, optionally,
Ogasawara et al. 6 Id. at 6-8.
3. Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Oshefsky, Satoh, and, optionally, Ogasawara. Id. at 9-10.
4. Claims 8, 9, 12, 14--17, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Oshefsky view of Ogasawara, Jackson7 and,
optionally, Rooyakkers et al. 8 Id. at 10-13.
2 The Examiner originally based the rejections on the pre-AIA versions of 35
U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Final Act. 2. At Appellant's prompting, the Examiner
modified the rejections to rely on the post-AIA version of the statutes. See
Appeal Br. 7; Answer 22.
3 WO 2011/118491, published Sept. 29, 2011 (US 2013/00911998 Al,
published Apr. 18, 2013 relied upon as English language translation)
("Yamamoto").
4 US 4,578,133, issued Mar. 25, 1986 ("Oshefsky").
5 US 7,195,684 B2, issued Mar. 27, 2007 ("Satoh").
6 W020I0/071069 Al, published Jun. 24, 2010 (US 2011/0287918 Al,
published Nov. 24, 2011 relied upon as English language translation)
("Ogasawara").
7 US 2007/0040301 Al, published Feb 22, 2007 ("Jackson").
8 US 5,275,676, issued Jan. 4, 1994 ("Rooyakkers").
3
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Oshefsky, Satoh, Merkatoris et al. 9, and, optionally, Ogasawara.
Id. at 13-14.
6. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Oshefsky, Ogasawara, Jackson, Merkatoris, and, optionally,
Rooyakkers. Id. at 13-14.
7. Claims 23, 25-27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Oshefsky, Ogasawara, and, optionally, Rooyakkers.
Id. at 15-16.
8. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Oshefsky, Ogasawara, and, optionally, Rooyakkers, and further in
view of Jackson. Id. at 17.
9. Claims 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Yamamoto in view ofMerkatoris. Id. at 17-18.
DISCUSSION
Appellant presents argument on two related claim limitations -
"carrying the discrete article on the input carrier member" and "transferring
the discrete article from the input carrier member to the transfer member"
found in independent claims 1, 8, and 23. Appeal Br. 5-7. Rejections 1 and
9 (rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14, 17, 23, 25-27, 29, and 33-35) rely upon
Yamamoto as teaching such limitation. Final Act. 2-5, 16-17. Rejections
2-8 (rejecting claims 1-12, 14--17, 23, 25-29, and 33-35) rely upon
Oshefsky ( or in the alternative Oshefsky in combination with Ogasawara) to
teach same. Final Act. 6-16.
9 US 5,389,173, issued Feb. 14, 1995 ("Merkatoris").
4
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
Appellant presents separate arguments for each reference relating to
the disputed limitations but no other argument. Accordingly, Rejections 1
and 9 (predicated on Yamamoto) will stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(iv) (2014). Rejections 2-8 (predicated on Oshefsky and
Ogasawara) will do likewise. Id.
Rejections 1 and 9. In support of Rejections 1 and 9, the Examiner
found that Yamamoto teaches "carrying the discrete article on the input
carrier member" and "transferring the discrete article from the input carrier
member to the transfer member" as required by all independent claims.
Specifically, the Examiner found that Yamamoto teaches "providing an
input carrier member (unlabeled lowermost roller of Figure 3 carrying the
discrete articles 10a and 11) for the discrete article." Final Act. 2. Figure 3
of Yamamoto is reproduced below for context.
5
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
Figure 3 is a schematic side view of the transfer device of Yamamoto.
Yamamoto ,r 31. Appellant argues that the lowermost roller of Figure 3 does
not carry a "discrete article." Rather, Appellant argues, it carries
"continuous sheet-like member lOa." Appeal Br. 5 (citing Yamamoto ,r 3).
Accordingly, Appellant reasons, neither limitation requiring a "discrete
article" is taught.
The Specification teaches as follows regarding the term "discrete
articles":
The term "discrete articles" refers herein to absorbent
articles, pants, taped diapers, sanitary napkins, bandages,
medical pads and dressings, and any other suitable articles, in
any industry, capable of being transferred using the transfer
apparatuses of the present disclosure. Discrete articles may also
refer herein to portions of the absorbent articles, pants, taped
diapers, sanitary napkins, bandages, medical pads and dressings,
and other suitable articles. The discrete articles may be flexible.
Spec. 8. The Specification further teaches that
a continuous web of articles 108 may be fed on a roll or other
conveying mechanism toward the first moving carrier member
104. Once a portion of the web of discrete articles 108 long
enough to form a discrete article 102 is engaged with the first
moving carrier member 104 and/ or is engaged with a portion of
a transfer member 112 of the transfer assembly 100, a knife
integral to the first moving carrier member 104 may cut the web
108 into discrete articles 102 against an anvil roll 114.
Spec. 15. This is shown in Figure 4 of the present Application, reproduced
below.
6
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
Figure 4 of the Application is a front view of the transfer assembly in accord
with one embodiment of the described invention. Spec. 2.
The sheet-like member 1 Oa of Yamamoto is similar to the "web of
discrete articles 108" of the Specification. There is some ambiguity as to
whether a "web of discrete articles" is, itself, a discrete article. The
Examiner takes the position that an entire continuous web (such as sheet-like
member 1 Oa of Yamamoto) may be a discrete article. Answer 19. The
better argument seems to be that it is not. In any case, such issue need not
be definitely resolved here because we affirm for reasons that do not depend
on this interpretation.
In addition to the finding discussed above regarding sheet-like
member 1 Oa, the Examiner additionally determined, in the alternative, that
"absorbent body 11" of Yamamoto was also a discrete article. Answer 19.
The Examiner finds that absorbent bodies 11 are "separate or distinct from
each other." Id. ( citing Yamamoto, Figure 2). This is consistent with Figure
2 of Yamamoto showing absorbent bodies 11 (perforated lines) as individual
7
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
articles. Similarly, Yamamoto states that "the absorbent bodies 11, 11 ...
are in a state disposed intermittently in the aforementioned longitudinal
direction." Yamamoto ,r 105 ( ellipses in original) ( emphasis added).
Further, the absorbent bodies of Yamamoto are well-described by the
Specification's express definition of "discrete articles" as including
"absorbent articles, pants, taped diapers, sanitary napkins, bandages,
medical pads and dressings, and any other suitable articles, in any
industry, capable of being transferred using the transfer apparatuses of
the present disclosure." Spec. 8. The Specification does not include in this
broad definition any requirement that the "discrete articles" be physically
separate, or not attached via a supporting web.
Further, Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's alternative
finding. Appellant cannot be said to have shown error in a finding that was
not addressed. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has
long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
error in the examiner's rejections").
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in Rejections 1
and 9.
Rejections 2--8. In support of Rejections 2-8, the Examiner
determined that Oshefsky teaches input supply roller 28 which satisfies the
"input carrier" limitation and "two continuous strips 16' and 18' of elastic
material" either of which satisfies the "discrete article" limitation. Final Act.
6. Thus, the Examiner determined, Oshefsky would have taught "carrying
the discrete article on the input carrier member" and "transferring the
discrete article from the input carrier member to the transfer member." Id.
8
Appeal2017-008544
Application 14/059,500
As an alternative basis of rejection, the Examiner additionally determined
that Oshefsky, as modified in keeping with the teachings of Ogasawara,
would have taught "carrying the discrete article on the input carrier member"
and "transferring the discrete article from the input carrier member to the
transfer member." Id. at 7-8.
Appellant argues that Oshefsky, by itself, does not teach an input
carrier member that carries a discrete article. Appeal Br. 6. The basis of
Appellant's argument is that continuous strips 16' and 18' are not discrete
articles. Id. Appellant does not address the Examiner's alternative basis of
rejection, stating only that "[ n Jone of the references combined with
Oshefsky, to Appellants' best understanding, remedy these deficiencies of
Oshefsky." See Appeal Br. 6-7; Answer 21 ("It is noted appellants have not
set forth any specific argument regarding Oshefsky as modified by
Ogasawara.").
As above, Appellant cannot be said to have shown error in a finding
that was not addressed. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in
Rejections 2-8.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-12, 14--17, 23, 25-29, and 33-35 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a).
AFFIRMED
9