Ex Parte Skoog et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2012

12337171 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 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.
12/337,171 12/17/2008 Henry Skoog 64045577US16 3211
23556 7590 08/23/2012
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tara Pohlkotte
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
SALVATORE, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2012 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 HENRY SKOOG, CRAIG FARRELL THOMASCHEFSKY
and LAWRENCE M. BROWN

____________

Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 24 through 41 and 43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method of making an
embossed hydroentangled nonwoven composite material and the product
made by this method. App. Br. 2. Claim 24 is illustrative:
24. A method of making an embossed, hydraulically
entangled nonwoven composite fabric having a nonwoven
component and a fibrous component consisting of fibers, said
method comprising:
superposing a fibrous material layer over a nonwoven
fibrous web layer;
hydraulically entangling said layers to form a composite
material;
drying the composite material;
heating the composite material to form a heated
composite material; and
embossing the heated composite material in an
embossing gap formed by a pair of matched embossing rolls.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:

Mitchell US 5,072,687 December 17, 1991
Palacio US 2003/0171056 A1 September 11, 2003
Anderson US 2004/0121693 A1 June 24, 2004

Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171

3
Appellants request review of the following rejections (App. Br. 2)
from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claims 24-30, 34-41 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Anderson and Mitchell.
2. Claims 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Mitchell and Palacio.

OPINION
The dispositive issue for this appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combination of Anderson and Mitchell would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to a method of making an embossed,
hydraulically entangled nonwoven composite fabric by embossing the
composite fabric in its heated state as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 24? 1, 2
After thorough review of the respective positions provided by
Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner found that Anderson discloses a method of making an
embossed, hydraulically entangled nonwoven composite fabric similar to
Appellants’ claimed method with the exception that Anderson does not teach
embossing the heated composite fabric after it is made. Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner also found that Anderson discloses post-treatment of the

1 We will limit our discussion to independent claim 24.
2 A discussion of the Palacio reference cited in the separate obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 31-33 is unnecessary for disposition of the
present appeal. The Examiner relied upon this reference to describe features
of claims 31-33 not related to the dispositive issue.
Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171

4
composite fabric, including lightly pressing the composite with calender
rolls. Id. at 5. The Examiner found that Mitchell discloses patterned
calender rolls to emboss absorbent products with a variety of patterns. Id.
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to include a post-treatment embossing step to provide an exterior
appearance or tactile properties to Anderson’s composite fabric. Id.
Appellants argue that Anderson and Mitchell, individually or in
combination, do not teach embossing the composite fabric in its heated state.
App. Br. 3. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not shown that
Anderson’s finishing steps, including lightly pressing the composite fabric
between calender rolls, are typically performed on a heated composite
fabric. Id. at 4.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that Anderson teaches the claimed heating step and
that other subsequent post-treatment of the composite fabric, such as
pressing with calender rolls, is appropriate. Ans. 7-8. It has not been
disputed that Mitchell teaches that calender rolls can provide embossings.
Id. at 8. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a post-treatment embossing step
to Anderson’s method to arrive to the subject matter of independent claim
24. Id. at 5. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that a post-treatment embossing step could have been performed
subsequent to the heating step. Moreover, Appellants have not provided any
persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to refute the Examiner’s
reasonable determination that such a step would have been within the
ordinary skill of the art.
Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171

5
Appellants additionally argued that Anderson does not teach heating
the composite fabric to the specified temperatures of dependent claims 25-
27. As indicated by the Examiner, Anderson discloses forcing air heated to
a temperature of from about 200 oF to about 500 oF through the composite
fabric. Id. at 7; Anderson ¶ [0075]. We agree with the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been reasonable to expect that forcing air
heated at about 500 oF would have resulted in a composite material heated to
a temperature greater than about 300 oF. Ans. 7.
While Appellants argued that Mitchell does not teach the claimed
matched embossing rolls (App. Br. 5-6), we agree with the Examiner that
Mitchell’s smooth/patterned rolls combination meets this claimed limitation.
Ans. 5, 8. With respect to Appellants’ arguments concerning claim 43 (App.
Br. 6), we also agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have sufficient knowledge and skill to select the type of
embossing rolls as a function of the desired surface pattern. Ans. 8; see KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants stated that the Examiner did not address the properties of
the resulting nonwoven webs of claims 31-36. App. Br. 6. Contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner addressed these limitations on page 5
of the Answer. Appellants have failed to specifically argue why the
combination of Anderson and Mitchell would not produce a composite
fabric having the claimed properties.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24-30, 34-
41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Anderson and Mitchell.
In addressing separately rejected dependent claims 31-33, Appellants
rely on the arguments presented when discussing independent claim 24.
Appeal 2011-008407
Application 12/337,171

6
(App. Br. 7). Appellants did not substantially address or further distinguish
the additionally cited secondary reference to Palacio based on the additional
limitations of dependent claims 31-33. Id. Therefore, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 31-33 for the reasons given above and by the Examiner.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 24-30, 34-41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Anderson and Mitchell is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anderson, Mitchell and Palacio is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

bar