Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

11198614 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte KUANG KAI LIU and JOSEPH LUSSIER1
__________

Appeal 2012-001666
Application 11/198,614
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
disposable absorbent article. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as The Procter & Gamble
Company (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-001666
Application 11/198,614

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 9-13, 17, 24-28, 31-34, 36-40, and 42-45 are pending and on
appeal (App. Br. 2). We will focus on claim 42, the only independent claim
on appeal, which reads as follows:
42. A disposable absorbent article comprising a pant, further
comprising:
a) a chassis comprising a front waist region, a rear waist region, a
crotch region between the front waist region and the rear waist region, and a
pair of longitudinal edges; wherein the chassis comprises a topsheet, a
backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and
backsheet;
b) a side panel, comprising a front side panel portion extending
laterally from the front waist region, and a rear side panel portion extending
laterally from the rear waist region and attached to the front side panel
portion;
c) a mechanical bond disposed on the side panel, the mechanical
bond comprising a bond zone having a bond zone density that is greater than
a density of material adjacent the bond zone, and a bond zone caliper that is
less than a caliper of material adjacent the bond zone; and
d) an informational indicia selected from the group consisting of a
graphic, a symbol, an icon, and a word, and combinations thereof, formed by
the bond zone.
Claims 17, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, and 42-45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weber et al. (US 6,352,528 B1, Mar. 5,
2002) (Ans. 4).
Claims 9-13, 26, 31-34, and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Weber (Final Rej. 5; Ans. 4).
ANTICIPATION
The Examiner finds that Weber discloses a disposable absorbent
article according to claim 42 (Ans. 5-6). In response to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner contends:
Appeal 2012-001666
Application 11/198,614

3
Weber provides a mechanical bond (80) that includes
graphics (93) disposed on the side panel (34) wherein the
mechanical bond comprises a bond zone (area encompassing
the mechanical bond) which has a greater density than material
adjacent to a bond zone at least for the reason that a bond zone
of Weber includes an embossed outer cover (col. 12, lines 26 -
28) a bodyside liner (col. 14, lines 62 - 65) and the fastener
itself (83) while material adjacent the bond zone may include
only the bodyside liner which is not embossed and would not
provide a density greater than an embossed area and additional
components presented in the bond zone.
The same rationale holds true for the claimed bond zone
caliper. As a bond zone caliper includes the bond zone as
previously defined and the area adjacent to that bond zone
includes the same elements presented in the bond zone as well
as a wrapped absorbent assembly (col. 14, lines 33 - 35), a
surge layer (col. 14, lines 41 - 42), waist elastics (54,56) and
containment flaps (46), the caliper of the bond zone is
considered to be less than an adjacent material.
(Ans. 7-8.)
Appellants argue that Weber “does not describe or suggest graphics
(or a symbol, an icon or word) formed by a bond zone of relatively greater
density and lesser caliper than adjacent material” (App. Br. 5). Put another
way, Appellants argue that Weber “nowhere teaches a bond zone having
relatively greater density and lesser caliper than adjacent material, which
forms an informational indicia” (Reply Br. 3).
Issue
Has the Examiner set forth a prima facie case that Weber discloses a
bond zone that forms an information indicia, the bond zone having a density
that is greater than a density of material adjacent the bond zone and having a
caliper that is less than a caliper of material adjacent the bond zone?
Appeal 2012-001666
Application 11/198,614

4
Analysis
We will start by interpreting claim 42. We note initially that we agree
with the Examiner that claim 42 does “not require the material considered in
reference to the density requirement to be the same material considered in
reference to the caliper requirement” (Ans. 8).
However, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the “bond
zone” as an “area encompassing the mechanical bond” (id. at 7). In
particular, claim 42 recites a “mechanical bond comprising a bond zone.”
“In the patent claim context, the term ‘comprising’ is well understood to
mean ‘including but not limited to’.” CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, claim 42 requires that the
mechanical bond includes a bond zone, not the other way around.
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that the bond zone can be
interpreted to be an area that is larger than the mechanical bond.
Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that it would be improper
to consider a portion of the fasteners 82-85 that has a graphic printed on it to
be a bond zone that forms an informational indicia. However, because the
Examiner has not properly indicated what is being considered the bond zone,
we cannot agree that the Examiner has adequately explained how the bond
zone has a density that is greater than a density of material adjacent the bond
zone, has a caliper that is less than a caliper of material adjacent the bond
zone, and forms an informational indicia, as required by claim 42.
Conclusion
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Weber
anticipates claim 42. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection of
Appeal 2012-001666
Application 11/198,614

5
claim 42 and of claims 17, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, and 43-45, which depend from
claim 42.
OBVIOUSNESS
In rejecting claims 9-13, 26, 31-34, and 36-39, which depend from
claim 42, the Examiner relies on Weber for teaching the article of claim 42
and argues that additional features recited in these dependent claims would
have been obvious (Final Rej. 5-6). However, as discussed above, the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Weber anticipates
claim 42. In addition, the Examiner does not explain why the article of
claim 42 would have been obvious. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner
has not set forth a prima facie case that the articles of claims 9-13, 26, 31-34,
and 36-39 would have been obvious. We therefore reverse the obviousness
rejection.

REVERSED

lp