10932199 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013)

Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 2013

10932199 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte UWE SCHNEIDER and RUSSELL PEARCE BRIDGES __________ Appeal 2012-001653 Application 10/932,199 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, 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 diaper. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-21, and 23 are on appeal (App. Br. 2). 1 The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall 1 Claims 24-31 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2012-001653 Application 10/932,199 2 together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A disposable diaper comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between said topsheet and said backsheet, said topsheet and said backsheet defining a periphery and longitudinal edges, portions of said longitudinal edges defining leg openings when said disposable diaper is worn, said disposable diaper comprising on each longitudinal edge a discrete edge band, substantially attached to an inner surface of said topsheet along said longitudinal edges at least at said portions of said longitudinal edges defining leg openings when said disposable diaper is worn, wherein said discrete edge bands do not extend the entire length of said longitudinal edge of said disposable diaper. Claim 13 is similar to claim 1, except that it recites that the discrete edge band is “substantially attached to an outer surface of said backsheet” (emphasis added). Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Faulks et al. (WO 97/21410 A1, Jun. 19, 1997) (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Faulks discloses the claimed diapers (Ans. 4- 5). In particular, the Examiner finds that Faulks discloses a “disposable diaper comprising on each longitudinal edge a discrete edge band (24) substantially attached to an inner surface (figure 6) or to an outer surface (figure 5) of the longitudinal edges” (id. at 5). Appellants argue that Faulks “does not disclose „a discrete edge band, substantially attached to an inner surface of [a] topsheet‟ as recited in independent claim 1, and does not disclose „a discrete edge band, substantially attached to an outer surface of [a] backsheet‟ as recited in independent claim 13” (App. Br. 3 (emphasis removed)). In particular, Appeal 2012-001653 Application 10/932,199 3 Appellants argue that “substantially attached” should be interpreted to mean that “a great extent of the discrete edge band is attached” (id. at 6). ISSUE Does the evidence support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Faulks‟s leg cuffs 24 are “substantially attached”? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Specification discloses a disposable diaper “comprising on each longitudinal edge a discrete edge band joined to the longitudinal edges at least at the portions of the longitudinal edges defining leg openings when the disposable diaper is worn” (Spec. 2: 25-32). 2. In particular, the Specification discloses: each edge band 60 comprises a discrete edge band 60 that is joined to the diaper 20 in a non-wrapping configuration such that it is substantially attached to one surface (e.g., backsheet, topsheet) of at least a portion of the longitudinal edge 50 of the diaper 20 to give the leg opening of diaper 20 a finished, seamed, appearance. (Id. at 12: 25-28.) 3. Faulks discloses an absorbent article, such as a diaper, having “[l]eg cuffs [24] formed by strips of material [that] are attached to the absorbent article in the crotch portion thereof” (Faulks 2: 7-11 & 6: 21-37). 4. In Figures 5 and 6, respectively, Faulks depicts an embodiment “wherein the leg cuff is attached to the outer cover” and an embodiment “wherein the leg cuff is attached to the bodyside liner” (id. at 6: 4-7). 5. Faulks also discloses that “the leg cuffs each have an outboard edge spaced outwardly from a respective lateral edge of the base structure and an inboard edge mounted upon a respective portion of the base structure, Appeal 2012-001653 Application 10/932,199 4 each outboard edge preferably being attached at ends thereof to a respective portion of the base structure” (id. at 3: 5-9). 6. In addition, Faulks discloses that “each respective leg cuff has an unattached width thereof, between the base structure and the outboard edge of the respective leg cuff, of between about 0.1 inch and up to the full- width of the leg cuff piece” (id. at 3: 20-23). 7. Faulks also discloses: “The leg cuff 24 can be bonded or attached to the base structure 28 by any suitable web attachment means, such as the use of adhesives, ultrasonic bonding or a combination thereof. Other possible attachment methods include stitching, plastic welding, solvent bonding and the like.” (Id. at 11: 14-17.) 8. In addition, Faulks discloses that “the entire portion of the surface of the leg cuff 24 which faces the base structure 28 is attached to the base structure 28” (id. at 11: 18-19). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds: “When claiming that something is „substantially attached‟, the substantial attachment may be in terms of the strength of the attachment being substantial or to a great extent/degree, such as the various methods of attachment (i.e., adhesive, bonded, stitched, welded, etc) as disclosed by Faulks.” (Ans. 7.) We agree. Although the phrase “substantially attached” may not be “clearly linked to strength of Appeal 2012-001653 Application 10/932,199 5 attachment” in the Specification (Reply Br. 2), we do not agree with Appellants that it clearly refers to the extent of attachment either (see Finding of Fact (FF) 2). Thus, we conclude that the Examiner‟s interpretation is reasonable. In addition, even if we interpret the phrase “substantially attached” to mean that “a great extent of the discrete edge band is attached,” as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 6), it is not clear why the amount of attachment depicted in, for example, Faulks Figure 1 would not be considered “substantial.” In particular, even if we consider the amount of the leg cuff attached along 4-4 to be insubstantial, it is not clear to us that the entire leg cuff, including each of its ends, which are entirely attached (FF 8), would not be considered “substantially attached.” CONCLUSION The evidence supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Faulks‟s leg cuffs 24 are “substantially attached.” We therefore affirm the anticipation rejection. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc