Ex Parte Schonbeck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2018

14265714 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/265,714 04/30/2014 Marcus Schonbeck 12873M 7737
27752 7590 02/16/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
VASAT, PETER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2018 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 MARCUS SCHONBECK, HENNER SOLLMANN,
DIETER HOMOLLE, GEORG BALDAUF,
URMISH POPATLAL DALAL,
MIGUEL ALBERTO HERRERA, ERICA LYNNE LOCKE,
LINDA ANN SAUER, and JAMES THOMAS BADER
Appeal 2017-000550
Application 14/265,714
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000550
Application 14/265,714
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an absorbent article comprising stretch
laminates. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 An absorbent article comprising:
i) a chassis comprising a topsheet, a
backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between
the topsheet and the backsheet; and
ii) at least one elastically elongatable panel
joined to the chassis, wherein the elastically
elongatable panel comprises a stretch laminate
comprising:
a. at least one cover layer; and
b. a pre-activated elastomeric film attached
to the cover layer, the elastomeric film having two
surfaces and a skin on at least one of the surfaces;
and
c. an adhesive disposed between the skin
and the cover layer;
wherein the skin has a plurality of wrinkles;
wherein the wrinkles have furrows, and an
ink is disposed in at least some of the furrows; and
wherein at least some of the ink is covered
by the adhesive such that at least some of the ink is
disposed between the skin and the adhesive.
REFERENCES
Krueger US 5,691,034 Nov. 25, 1997
Muslet US 2007/0003764 A1 Jan. 4,2007
2
Appeal 2017-000550
Application 14/265,714
Autran
Jaeger
Pip
US 2009/0264844 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
US 2010/0104830 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
US 2011/0189495 A1 Aug. 4, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 3 and 13 of co-pending
Application No. 14/268,364. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jaeger, Autran, Muslet, and Krueger. Id. at 6—25.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jaeger, Autran, Muslet, Krueger, and Pip. Id. at 25—26.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1—Non-statutory double patenting
Appellants have not responded to the Examiner’s provisional rejection
of claim 1 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 3 and
13 of co-pending Application No. 14/268,364. Therefore, Appellants have
waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain this rejection. See
In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the
Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal).
Claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20—Unpatentable
over Jaeger, Autran, Muslet, and Krueger
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of the claims
subject to this rejection. App. Br. 5—6. We select claim 1 as representative
of the claims, and decide the appeal of these claims on the basis of claim 1
alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-000550
Application 14/265,714
Appellants do not contest any of the Examiner’s findings regarding
what the prior-art references teach, and, in particular, do not contest that all
of claim 1 ’s limitations are found in the cited references. Instead,
Appellants assert that the Examiner used “impermissible hindsight” in
formulating this rejection. App. Br. 5. Appellants also assert that the
Examiner has not provided a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill to combine the prior-art teachings. Id. at 6; Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. First, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious. As our reviewing court has stated:
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellants have not
alleged that the Examiner relies on any knowledge gleaned only from
Appellants’ disclosure in formulating this rejection.
Second, we disagree that the Examiner failed to provide a reason to
combine the references. On the contrary, the Examiner identifies a reason
for each proposed combination. For example, regarding the combination of
Jaeger and Autran, the Examiner states:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
provide the absorbent article of Jaeger with a chassis comprising
a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between
the topsheet and the backsheet, as taught by Autran, to provide
the benefit of receiving and containing urine and/or other body
exudates.
4
Appeal 2017-000550
Application 14/265,714
Final Act. 7. Likewise, the Examiner explains why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined Muslet (id. at 8) and Krueger (id. at 9) with
Jaeger. Appellants do not address these statements at all, much less explain
why they are erroneous. Because Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious, we sustain the rejection of claim 1—as well as claims 2—6, 8—16,
and 18—20—as unpatentable over Jaeger, Autran, Muslet, and Krueger.
Claims 7 and 17—Unpatentable over
Jaeger, Autran, Muslet, Krueger, and Pip
Appellants do not separately address this rejection, but instead rely on
the arguments made with respect to the previous rejection. App. Br. 5—6.
Because we found these arguments unpersuasive, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7 and 17 as unpatentable over Jaeger, Autran, Muslet,
Krueger, and Pip.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is
affirmed.
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
5