Ex Parte Trefethren et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 3, 2012

11414101 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 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.
11/414,101 04/28/2006 Susan M. Trefethren 64049744US01 (22312) 3559
23556 7590 01/04/2012
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Tara Pohlkotte
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
OHERN, BRENT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2012 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 SUSAN M. TREFETHREN, JONATHAN K.
ARENDT, CARL G. RIPPL, MICHAEL T. KREBSBACH,
COURTNEY B. DE SALVATORE, and SHERRY H.
HUDSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-004696
Application 11/414,101
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004696
Application 11/414,101

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Examiner maintains two rejections, a rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, and a rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Yamashita1. However, Appellants present arguments only for the
rejection of claims 1-4 over Yamashita. As Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, we
summarily affirm that rejection.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-4 over Yamashita, we note that
Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others. We select claim 1
as representative for deciding the issues arising for that rejection.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A cleaning composite comprising melamine-based
foam having one or more lines of frangibility that divide the
cleaning composite into rows of rectangular shaped pieces, with
each row having a common line of frangibility.
(Claims App. at Br. 6.)
There is no dispute that Yamashita describes a cleaning tool having a
melamine resin foam body (abrasive member 3) (Yamashita, ¶ (0008)).
These cleaning tools are formed from the unfolded cleaning tool shown in
Figure 1. Figure 1 is reproduced below:

1 Yamashita, JP 2001/169985, pub. Jun. 26, 2001, as translated. We rely
upon and cite to the translation made of record Dec. 01, 2009.
App
App

the u
teach
tools
from
Acco
line
frang
eal 2010-0
lication 11
There is
nfolded cl
es or rend
1. Figure
Obli

Rather, A
Yamashit
rding to A
of frangibi
ibility as
04696
/414,101
Oblique
further no
eaning too
ers obviou
4 is repro
que view o
ppellants
a, namely
ppellants,
lity cutting
shown in A
view of cl
dispute th
ls 1 befor
s lines of
duced belo
f multiple
separated
argue tha
, the “com
this “com
across th
ppellants
3
eaning too

at Yamash
e they are
frangibilit
w:
uncut clea
from each
t a claimed
mon line o
mon line o
e columns
’ demonstr
l 1 before
ita’s Figu
separated,
y running
ning tools
other
element i
f frangibil
f frangibi
formed by
ative draw

it is folde
re 4 depict
and that Y
between th

1 before
s complet
ity” (Br. 4
lity” is a s
the paral
ing below
d
s rows of
amashita
e cleaning
they are
ely missin
).
eparate
lel lines of
:

g

App
App

depi
6).

the m
broa
it en

one l
the S
eal 2010-0
lication 11
De
The Exa
cts in Figu
The und
eaning of
dest reason
compass th
The fact
The Spe
ocation: a
pecificatio
Th
also be c
sizes and
separate
depicts a
04696
/414,101
monstrativ
miner, how
re 4 read o
erlying iss
“common
able inter
e lines of
s relevant
cification m
t page 15 o
n,
e placeme
hanged to
shapes on
d along a l
nother rep
e Drawing
frangi
ever, find
n the claim
ue, therefo
line of fra
pretation c
frangibilit
to this que
entions a
f the Spec
nt of two
produce in
ce the ini
ine of fran
resentativ
4
(cf. Fig. 3
bility (Br.
s that the
ed “comm
re, is one
ngibility”
onsistent w
y taught b
stion are a
“common
ification.
or more lin
dividual f
tial foam p
gibility. F
e version o
)showing
3)
lines of fra
on line o
of claim in
when that
ith the Sp
y Yamash
s follows.
line of fr
According
es of fran
oam piece
iece or blo
or examp
f a cleanin
common l
ngibility Y
f frangibil
terpretatio
language
ecificatio
ita?

angibility”
to this po
gibility m
s of differ
ck is
le, Figure
g compos
ine of
amashita
ity” (Ans.
n: What i
is given it
n, and doe
in only
rtion of
ay
ing
2
ite

s
s
s
Appeal 2010-004696
Application 11/414,101

5
comprising lines of frangibility (in this case a rectangular block
having a length of 14.6 centimeters, a width of 6.1 centimeters,
and 4 lines of frangibility spaced apart by a distance of 29.2
millimeters-with each line of frangibility comprising circular
openings having a diameter of 1 millimeter, and spaced apart by
a distance of 1.8 millimeter). Or, for example, a cleaning block
may have lines of frangibility that divide the block into two
rows of rectangular-shaped pieces, with each row having one
common line of frangibility placed centrally along one of the
dimensions of the initial block (e.g., akin to the two rows of
rectangular-shaped pieces of chocolate in a Hershey's®-brand
chocolate bar).
(Spec. 15:13-25 (emphasis added).) Appellants’ Figure 3, similarly to
Appellants Demonstrative Drawing, shows a line 30 dividing the columns
created by the other lines of frangibility.
The Specification does not define “common line of frangibility” (See
Spec., generally).
During examination, "claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent claim language carrying
a narrow meaning, we only limit the claim based on the specification when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition. In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to
narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
While the Specification discusses placing a “common line of
frangibility” in a particular orientation that is in concert with Appellants’
Appeal 2010-004696
Application 11/414,101

6
Demonstrative Drawing, we cannot say that the claim is particularly limited
to this disclosed orientation. The Specification does not define “common
line of frangibility,” nor does the Specification otherwise limit the “common
line of frangibility” to only the line in the orientation discussed in the
Specification. Moreover, the word “common” is not alone descriptive of a
line running perpendicular and dividing the rows created by the other lines
of frangibility. It is reasonable to interpret “common” as referring to a line
of frangibility common to two rows of melamine based composite if the
rows share the line of frangibility. This interpretation gives weight to all
words in the claim, without reading limitations from a specific embodiment
into the claim. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the “common
line of frangibility” of the claim encompasses one of the lines of frangibility
taught by Yamashita.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also summarily
sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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)(1).

AFFIRMED

cam