Ex Parte Horn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12783600 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121783,600 05/20/2010
27752 7590 08/23/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Alexander Horn
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.
11387MQ 7125
EXAMINER
TATESURE, VINCENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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 THOMAS ALEXANDER HORN,
ARMAN ASHRAF, ANDREW JAMES SAUER,
CLARISSA MALDONADO, and
ROBERT HAINES TURNER1
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Technology Center 1700
Before: JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Proctor & Gamble
Company. App. Br. 1.
2 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Action mailed March 11, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 8, 2014 ("App. Br."), and the
Examiner's Answer mailed November 6, 2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 4--27, 29, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a nonwoven landing zone for a disposable
wearable absorbent article, wherein the landing zone includes a graphic
image, a bond pattern, and a contour line. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A disposable wearable absorbent article, compnsmg a
nonwoven landing zone, said nonwoven landing zone including:
a nonwoven material having outer edges, an inner surface
and an outer surface;
a graphic image printed on one of said inner, and the outer
surfaces of said nonwoven material, wherein said graphic image
is at least partially surrounded by a contour line having a contour
line width, wherein said contour line is adjacent said outer edges
of said nonwoven material; and
a bond pattern having a plurality of non-intersecting wavy
bond lines overlaying the graphic image, wherein each of the
bond lines has a bond line width;
wherein the contour line width is at least 20% greater than
each of the bond line widths;
wherein the bond pattern has a bond pitch between the
bond lines, and the overall height of the graphic image is at least
50% greater than the bond pitch;
wherein each of the bond lines has a bond line wavelength
and the overall width of the graphic image is at least 10% greater
than each of the bond line wavelengths.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Cammarota et al.
("Cammarota")
Hom et al.
("Hom")3
Yamaguchi
REFERENCES
US 6,307,119 Bl Oct. 23, 2001
US 2007 /0275622 Al Nov. 29, 2007
WO 03/034966 Al May 1, 2003
REJECTION
All pending claims are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hom in view of Yamaguchi and Cammarota.
BACKGROUND
According to the Specification, the application is drawn to front-
fastenable wearable absorbent articles with fibrous landing zones having
areas printed with graphics and bond patterns overlaying the printed areas,
wherein the printed areas and the bond patterns are configured to allow the
graphics to be readily visibly discernible. Spec. 1 (Summary).
Figure 1 of the application is reproduced below:
3 Both Appellants and the Examiner refer to this reference as "Hom." We
note that that the first-named inventor of this reference is identified as
Kazuhiko Masuda. For consistency, we shall also identify this reference as
"Hom."
3
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Figure 1 illustrates a perspective view of a front-fastenable wearable
absorbent article with fibrous landing zone having printed graphics and bond
pattern.
The application contemplates that letters, character images, or
numbers with widths and/or heights larger than the pitch and/or wavelength
of a bond pattern (created by bond lines) will be more readily visibly
discernable from the bond pattern. Spec. 10-12. "Bond line" means a
recognizable pathway, formed by one or more bonded areas, and having a
defined width that is substantially less than a defined length. Id. at 13.
The application describes a "contour line" as a line that surrounds
completely or partially a character image, letter, number, or other artwork
image within a printed area. Id. at 8. The application contemplates that
contour line widths or character widths that are larger than the bond line
width will be more readily visibly discernable from the bond pattern. Id. at
12.
Figure 4 of the application is reproduced below:
123
)
130 I 160
I
146 155
Figure 4 illustrates a top view of an outside of the nonwoven landing zone
120 with unprinted border 123 surrounding printed area 130 which includes
character image 150 surrounded by contour line 154.
Figure 5 of the application is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Figure 5 illustrates the landing zone of Figure 4, but with bond pattern 170
shown.
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record, we find that
Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject
matter recited in claims 1, 2, 4--27, 29, and 30 obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of the above claims for the reasons set
forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others. App. Br. 4.
We select claim 1 as representative to decide the issues on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37( c )(1 )(vii).
The Examiner finds that Hom teaches all limitations of the claims
except (1) either of the landing zone's inner or outer surfaces includes a
graphic image which is disposed under the inner surface of the nonwoven
material and is visibly discernible from the bond pattern through the
nonwoven material; and (2) the graphic image is surrounded by a contour
5
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
line, that the contour line width is greater than each of the bond line widths
as claimed, the claimed height of the image being at least 50% greater than
the bond pitch, the claimed overall width of the image being at least 10%
greater than the wavelengths as claimed, and the contour line is adjacent to
the outer edges of the landing zone. Final Act. 2--4. As to the contour line,
the Examiner finds that Cammarota teaches a disposable absorbent article
comprising graphics that include a visual segmentation element which
distinguishes the main graphic design from other graphics printed on the
article. Id. at 3. As to the graphic image, the Examiner finds that
Yamaguchi teaches a disposable absorbent article including landing zone
graphics which may be printed on the inner surface and must be visible
through the nonwoven layer. Id.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Hom's
teachings; instead they argue that the combination of Yamaguchi and
Cammarota fail to cure the deficiencies in Hom acknowledged by the
Examiner. App. Br. 7, 9-10.
Appellants first argue that neither Yamaguchi nor Cammarota teach
"a graphic image printed on one of said inner, and the outer surfaces of said
nonwoven material of the landing zone." Id. at 7. Appellants specifically
assert that "Yamaguchi teaches printing the graphics on the backsheet of
the absorbent article" so that the nonwoven layers cover the graphics printed
on the backsheet. Id. (emphasis in original).
The Examiner responds that Yamaguchi teaches that the landing zone
graphics may be printed on not only the inner and outer surfaces of the
backsheet, but also on the nonwoven material which may be joined to the
outer surface of the backsheet. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that this
6
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
disclosure of Yamaguchi corresponds to the configuration claimed by
Appellants. Id. Yamaguchi discloses the landing zone graphics are visible
through the outer non woven layer. Yamaguchi 11. A person of ordinary
skill in the art, in light of the teachings of Yamaguchi, would have
reasonably expected that a graphic placed on the nonwoven material, which
is attached to the backsheet, would have been visible. It is not disputed the
Yamaguchi is concerned with the visualization of the graphic in the landing
zone area.
Appellants argue that Hom and Yamaguchi fail to teach a contour line
and Cammarota fails to cure this deficiency. App. Br. 9. In disputing the
Examiner's finding that Cammarota teaches this claim element, Appellants
contend that "Cammarota teaches at most a visual segmentation element that
is disposed between the permanent character graphics and the active object
graphic." Id.
The Examiner points to Figure 1 of Cammarota to illustrate that the
reference discloses the contour line of the claims. Figure 1 of Cammarota is
reproduced below:
7
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Figure 1 of Cammarota illustrates a front perspective of a disposable
absorbent article (training pant) with permanent character graphic 60
surrounded by visual segmentation element 64. Cammarota Abstract, Fig. 1,
col. 13, 11. 24--26, col. 16, 11. 13-18.
The Examiner finds the visual segmentation element 64 of
Cammarota, which surrounds graphic image 60 on the front of the article, to
be the contour line of the claims. Ans. 3. Cammarota describes the visual
segmentation line as being disposed on the outer cover and distinguishing
the permanent character graphic from other graphics. Cammarota col. 16, 11.
52-56. The Examiner notes that Appellants' Specification describes the
contour line as serving an ornamental or decorative purpose, said purpose
including highlighting the character image to make it more visible-just as
in Cammarota. Ans. 3, Spec. 8. The Examiner determines in light of the
teachings of Cammarota that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize contour lines to surround a graphic to distinguish the
graphic from the background. Ans. 3--4. In light of the teachings cited by
the Examiner as a whole, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the importance of the visibility of the graphic on the non woven
article. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have of recognized that a
graphic placed within the landing zone, as suggested by Yamaguchi, should
have been sized and designed to allow visibility within that zone.
Yamaguchi 11.
Finally, Appellants contend that the combined references fail to teach
the claimed relationship between the graphic image, the contour line, and the
bond line as recited in the claims. App. Br. 10.
8
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
The Examiner finds that Hom discloses bond lines and bond line
width in the claimed range. Ans. 4 (citing Hom i-f 92 and Fig. 3A).
The Examiner acknowledges that the cited references do not teach the
claimed relationship between the contour line width and the bond line width.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Cammarota discloses contour lines
(visual segmentation elements), which necessarily comprise contour line
widths. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that the contour line width is a
result-effective variable, as the separation of the character graphic from
other graphics increases in a child's mind as the width of the contour line
increases. Id. (citing Cammarota col. 7, 11. 57---col. 8, 11. 4). Recognition in
the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the
variable result-effective. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297
(Fed. Cir. 2012). "Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective
variable is ... ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617
F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation."). As stated above, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have of recognized that a graphic placed within the landing zone, as
suggested by Yamaguchi, should have been sized and designed to allow
visibility within that zone. Yamaguchi 11. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have sufficient skill to create a graphic including contour lines
with the proper thickness to facilitate its viewing.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the size of the graphic is not
mentioned in the cited references, but finds that the graphic appears only
decorative or ornamental, its size is readily manipulated, and, contrary to
9
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
Appellants' assertion (App. Br. 13), its size does not provide any technical
contribution over the prior art. Final Act. 5, Ans. 5. That is, the importance
of sizing a graphic to be viewable through a landing zone is recognized by
the cited prior art. As such, the size of the graphic is a matter of design
choice which does not alter the function of the claimed disposable wearable
absorbent article, comprising a nonwoven landing zone. Changes that do not
alter function ordinarily are obvious variations. See In re Rice, 341 F .2d
309, 314 (CCP A 1965) (Examiner properly found that claimed dimensional
relationship between collection chamber and walls of main air chamber
"does not produce any different effect or result"); Gardner v. TEC Systems,
Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (where only difference between
prior art and claims was recitation of relative dimensions of claimed device
and device having claimed relative dimensions would not perform
differently than prior art device, claimed device was not patentably distinct
from prior art device); In re Rose, 220 F .2d 459, 463 (CCP A 1955) ("[T]he
size of the article under consideration ... is not ordinarily a matter of
invention.").
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the claimed
relationship between the graphic image, the contour line, and the bond line is
obvious over Hom in view of Yamaguchi and Cammarota.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2,
4--27, 29, and 30 is AFFIRMED.
10
Appeal2015-002496
Application 12/783,600
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11