Ex Parte Szymonski et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 6, 2012

11216468 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 6, 2012)

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.
11/216,468 08/31/2005 Krzysztof Andrzej Szymonski KCX-1036 (20835) 3975
22827 7590 01/06/2012
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
KUMAR, RAKESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2012 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 KRZYSZTOF ANDRZEJ SZYMONSKI,
DAPHNE LYNN VANBUREN, and SARA MARIE ETHERIDGE
____________________

Appeal 2009-011540
Application 11/216,468
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011540
Application 11/216,468

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter. The dispenser of claim 1 could be, for example, a
facial tissue box.
1. A dispenser for dispensing interfolded disposable sheets
comprising:
a dispensing container housing a stack of interfolded
disposable sheets that are to be withdrawn one after another, the
dispensing container including a removable panel that, once
removed, uncovers an opening for withdrawing the sheets, the
removable panel being made from a single piece of material
and including an adhesive receptive portion, the adhesive
receptive portion defining a recess or a protrusion facing the
stack of disposable sheets, the recess or protrusion being
formed into and being integral with the removable panel, the
recess or protrusion comprising an indentation or an inverted
indentation that has been formed into the removable panel, an
adhesive material being located on and in direct contact with
the recess or the protrusion of the removable panel and being
attached to a first sheet in the stack of interfolded sheets.

Rejections
I. Claims 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Masui (4,574,952, iss. Mar. 11, 1986).
II. Claims 2-11, 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Masui and Landsiedel (US 2,071,981, iss. Feb. 23,
1937).

We REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-011540
Application 11/216,468

3
OPINION
Rejection I
We reverse Rejection I for the reasons expressed by Appellants on
lines 7-14 of page 8 of the Appeal Brief. In particular, we agree that claim 1
requires, and Masui does not describe, a removable panel, including its
recess (or protrusion), made from a single piece of material. The members
(strings) 11 of Masui cannot serve to form the recess on the panel 6 because
they are an additional piece of material from the panel 6. See also Final
Rejection mailed Mar. 24, 2008 at 2 (explaining the basis of the Examiner’s
rejection); Masui, col. 2, ll. 47-50 (describing the function of strings 11).
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 1 and thus their rejection contains the same
deficiency.
Rejection II
We reverse Rejection II as to claims 2-11 because these claims
depend from claim 1 and the rejection thereof suffers from the same
deficiency identified above and the Examiner does not identify any
teachings in Landsiedel to modify Masui to include a recess or protrusion in
the removable panel formed from a single piece of material. Landsiedel
teaches a recess formed (or defined) by two pieces of material, not one. See,
e.g., fig. 5.
We reverse Rejection II as to claims 16-30 because neither Masui nor
Landsiedel teaches forming a recess into a removable panel made from a
single piece of material (as expressed above) and the Examiner does not
explain why it would have been obvious to modify either reference to
include such a feature.
Appeal 2009-011540
Application 11/216,468

4
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding
claims 1-30.

REVERSED

Klh