Ex Parte Gilbert et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

11601946 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/601,946 11/20/2006 Steven Ray Gilbert 10648 8221
27752 7590 06/01/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEVEN RAY GILBERT and JEFFREY SCOTT HUDSON
__________

Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-14, directed to a method of stabilizing a compressed product made
from a pledget. The Examiner has rejected the claims on the grounds of
anticipation and obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“[T]he term ‘pledget’ refers to a construction of absorbent material
prior to the compression of such construction into a tampon or other
absorbent product” (Spec. 3: 18-19). “During the production of compressed
products from pledgets, it is often required to form the product under
sustained high pressure, while exposing the pledget to thermal molding
conditions” (id. at 1: 5-7) to stabilize the product, i.e., to “overcome the
natural tendency of the [finished product] to re-expand to the original size,
shape, and volume of the . . . pledget” (id. at 5: 26-27). This treatment can
compromise certain aesthetic and performance characteristics of the final
product, such as expansion capacity during use, and surface finish quality
(id. at 1: 9-13).
The Specification discloses a process for producing a stable
compressed absorbent product from a pledget, without compromising the
aesthetic and performance characteristics of the finished product.
Claims 1-14 are pending and on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A process for stabilizing a product from a pledget, comprising the
steps of:
providing a pledget into a compression mold;
compressing said pledget in said compression mold to form a
compressed pledget;
unloading said compressed pledget from said compression mold and
loading said compressed pledget into a stabilization mold by a transfer
member, whereby said transfer member advances to a loading position;
retracting said transfer member to a stabilizing position;
stabilizing said compressed pledget in said stabilization mold to form
a stabilized product,
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

3
wherein said transfer member remains in said stabilizing position
during at least a portion of the step of stabilizing said compressed pledget;
and
unloading said stabilized product from said stabilization mold.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hull (WO 98/43589, October 8, 1998).
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hull and Bletzinger (US 2,926,394, March 1, 1960).
We reverse.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. According to the Specification, a “stabilized” product is one “in
a self-sustaining state, wherein it has overcome the natural tendency to re-
expand to the original size, shape and volume of the absorbent material and
overwrap, which comprise the pledget” (Spec. 5: 25-27). The Specification
teaches that a compressed pledget may be stabilized with steam, moisture,
and/or heated and/or humidified gas (id. at 10: 1-8, 26-31).
2. Claim 1, the only independent claim, represents the invention in
its broadest aspect. Focusing on the transfer and stabilization steps, the
method comprises unloading a compressed pledget from a compression
mold, and loading it into a stabilization mold using a transfer member. The
transfer member advances to a “loading position,” and then retracts to a
“stabilizing position,” where it remains during at least part of the stabilizing
step.
3. Figures 19A and 20A of the Specification, reproduced below,
depict a compressed pledget 132 in the stabilization mold 104, with the
transfer member 110 advanced to the “loading position” (position A in
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

4
Figures 19A and 20A), and retracted to the “final molding position,” i.e., the
“stabilizing position” (position B in Figure 20A):

Figures 19A and 20A of the Specification depict a compressed pledget
132 in the stabilization mold 104, with the transfer member 110 advanced to
the “loading position” (position A in Figures 19A and 20A), and retracted to
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

5
the “final molding position,” i.e., the “stabilizing position” (position B in
Figure 20A) (Spec. 15: 27-29; 16: 17-33).

4. As explained in the Specification, the loading stroke (position
A in Figures 19A and 20A) of the transfer member 110 can be used to
“compress[ ] the pledget 112 longitudinally (in addition to the compression
in the radial direction provided by the compression [mold] 102” (Spec. 11:
30-31). However, “[u]pon completion of the loading stroke but prior to the
controlled retraction, the fiber density throughout the compressed pledget
132 may be non-uniform such that the fiber density . . . at the base region
158 . . . is greater than the fiber density . . . at the head region 156” (Spec.
15, l. 31 - 16: 1). This density gradient can lead to uneven expansion of the
finished product during use (id. at 19: 3-15).
5. As further explained in the Specification:
During the controlled retraction, the release of stress in
the material of the compressed pledget may be realized to a
greater degree in the base region 158 than the head region 156,
thereby allowing the stress of the base region material to be set
by the controlled retraction without substantially affecting the
stress of the head region material. By so establishing the
loading position A and the final molding position B, the
uniformity of the compressed pledget’s density gradient prior to
stabilization may be increased, the stress relaxation losses for
the stabilized product will be reduced particularly in the base
region thereby increasing the future maximum product
expansion. In addition, the controlled retraction can be
calibrated to . . . yield a product formed from the compressed
pledget with a generally smooth exterior . . .
(Spec. 18: 7-16.)
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

6
In other words, when the transfer member retracts to the stabilization
position B (as shown in Figure 20A) it creates a gap, “into which the
[longitudinally] compressed pledget material may rebound during retraction”
(id. at 18: 30-31), before final stabilization. Thus, “higher levels of
expansion” and “[a] greater ratio of tampon head expansion versus base
expansion may . . . be delivered” (id. at 20: 5-6) with “the use of transfer
member control” (id. at 20: 1).
6. Hull discloses a very similar method of compressing and
stabilizing a tampon blank (i.e., a pledget). Hull’s method is best illustrated
in Figures 6a, 6c, and 6d, reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

7
Figures 6a, 6c, and 6d of Hull depict various stages in Hull’s method
of compressing and stabilizing a tampon blank. Essentially, a tampon blank,
which has an initial length and diameter in excess of the desired diameter of
the finished tampon, is inserted into a radial compression chamber 26 and
radially compressed (Hull 10: 4-6, 14-15). Next, the radially compressed
blank 36 is urged out of the radial compression chamber and into an axial
compression chamber 50 by a reciprocating end ram 64 (id. at 15: 4-10),
where the radially compressed blank 36 is pressed against the concave ram
head 60 of a reciprocating ejection ram 58 (id. at 14: 25-30) and subjected to
“severe axial compression” until it is about 15-30% of its original length (id.
at 13: 3-6).
7. Hull explains that “severe axial compression” (Hull 13: 3)
“provide[s] a stable finished tampon length without the need for a heat
setting step” (id. at 12:1 - 13: 2).
8. Once the tampon is axially compressed, Hull teaches that the
other ram, ejection ram 58 “can now be reciprocated smoothly towards the
withdrawal end of the axial chamber to eject the now axially compressed
tampon” from the axial compression chamber 50 (id. at 15: 26-28).
DISCUSSION
There are two rejections of the claims on the grounds of anticipation
and obviousness, but we will discuss them together because the dispositive
issue in each is the same.
The Examiner finds that Hull discloses a method of stabilizing a
product made from a pledget which meets all the limitations of the claimed
method, including “retracting the transfer member 58, 64 to a stabilizing
position . . . [and] stabilizing the compressed pledget in the stabilization
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

8
mold . . . wherein said transfer member 58, 64 remains in stabilizing position
during a portion of the [stabilizing] step” (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants contend that Hull does not anticipate the claimed method
because “there is no disclosure as to the transfer member retracting to a
stabilizing position subsequent to loading the compressed pledget into a
stabilization mold, as in the present invention” (App. Br. 4).
We agree with Appellants that Hull does not disclose this admittedly
subtle step. It is true that Hull discloses two rams, each of which can
advance and retract: a “reciprocating withdrawal end ram 64” and a
“reciprocating ejection ram 58.” However, Hull does not disclose moving
either ram in the manner required by the claimed method.
According to Hull, withdrawal end ram 64 pushes the radially
compressed blank 36 (i.e., the compressed pledget) out of the radial
compression chamber 26 (i.e., the compression mold) and into the axial
compression chamber (i.e., the stabilization mold) and continues to push the
blank in the same direction until the blank presses against the ram head 60 of
ejection ram 58, and is compressed to 15-30% of its original length (FF6).
Thus, in terms of claim 1, withdrawal end ram 64 serves as a transfer
member because it unloads the compressed pledget from the compression
mold, and loads it into the stabilization mold.
However, Hull does not disclose a step in which withdrawal end ram
64 is retracted to “a stabilizing position” at any point during the stabilization
step. Rather, once the desired degree of compression is applied, Hull
teaches that “the ejection ram [58] can now be reciprocated smoothly
towards the withdrawal end of the axial chamber to eject the now axially
compressed tampon” from the axial compression chamber 50 (Hull 15: 26-
Appeal 2011-002295
Application 11/601,946

9
28; FF8). There is nothing to indicate that the withdrawal end ram 64 is
retracted at all before the stabilization step is complete and the stabilized
product is ejected.
With respect to claims 8-14, which stand rejected as obvious over
Hull and Bletzinger, we note that these claims depend directly or indirectly
from claim 1, and so require the same retraction step which is missing from
Hull. Bletzinger does not cure this deficiency.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-7 as anticipated by Hull is reversed.
The rejection of claims 8-14 as unpatentable over Hull and Bletzinger
is reversed.

REVERSED

dm