Ex Parte Volp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2018

13727745 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131727,745 12/27/2012
23556 7590 06/08/2018
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aaron Mark Volp
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
64812014US01 4983
EXAMINER
FRY,PATRICKB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2018 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):
Kimberly dark. docketing@kcc.com
Cindy.M.Trudell@kcc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON MARK VOLP, JOSEPH A. MLINAR,
JASON ANDREW VERBOOMEN, and
BRADLEY WILLAIM SCHOON
Appeal2017-007769
Application 13/727,745 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
11and14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc. Br. 1.
2 Claims 12, 13, and 15-25 have been withdrawn. Id.
Appeal2017-007769
Application 13/727,745
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosure is directed to "a method ... for producing a pre-
fastened adjustable pant-like disposable absorbent undergarment including a
fully or partially severed front body panel." Spec. 2 :21-22. Claim 1 is the
sole independent claim. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of producing pre-fastened disposable
undergarments, comprising:
a. providing a discrete undergarment moving longitudinally
in a machine direction, the discrete undergarment
including a front body panel, a back body panel attached
to the front body panel at side seams, an absorbent
assembly attached between the front body panel and back
body panel, a waist opening and a pair of leg openings;
b. separating the front body panel and the back body panel in
a z-direction;
c. passing a transport support structure through the waist
opening and the pair of leg openings;
d. placing the discrete undergarment onto the transport
support structure;
e. cutting the front body panel, while on the transport support
structure, to define a first portion of the front body panel,
a middle portion of the front body panel, and a third
portion of the front body panel; and
f. bridging the first portion of the front body panel and the
middle portion of the front body panel together with a
fastener assembly that connects the first portion and the
middle portion while on the transport support structure.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herrmann (US 5,626,711, issued May 6, 1997) and
2
Appeal2017-007769
Application 13/727,745
Schmoker et al. (US 2008/0114322 Al, published May 15, 2008)
(hereinafter "Schmoker").
II. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herrmann, Schmoker, and Warwick (US 3,642,119,
issued Feb. 15, 1972).
III. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herrmann, Schmoker, and Van Eperen et al. (US
2003/0062113 Al, published Apr. 3, 2003) (hereinafter "Van Eperen").
IV. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herrmann, Schmoker, and Olewicz (US 5,924,376, issued
July 20, 1999) (hereinafter "Olewicz").
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants present arguments against the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9,
and 10 together as a group. Br. 3--4. We select claim 1 as representative,
claims 2-5, 7, 9, and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Herrmann discloses most of Appellants'
claimed method including, inter alia, "providing a discrete undergarment,"
"separating the front body panel and the back body panel," "passing a
transport support structure (106, 108) through the waist opening and the pair
of leg openings," and "placing the discrete undergarment (134) onto the
transport support structure (106, 108)." Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds
that Schmoker teaches a disposable undergarment having a "front body
panel [with] two lines of weakness ( 42, 44) that divide the front body panel
3
Appeal2017-007769
Application 13/727,745
into three regions (36, 38, 40) and also has a pair of attachment members
(68, 70) to connect the regions together." Id. at 4. The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify "Herrmann ... as taught by Schmoker ... [to perforate the front
panel and apply the attachment members] while the undergarment is on the
transport support structure because the undergarment is most accessible and
secure while on the transport support structure." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that "the combination [of Herrmann and Schmoker]
has not been shown to teach or suggest at least two elements of the claimed
method." Br. 4. Appellants argue that the prior art combination does not
specifically disclose "cutting the front body panel while on the transport
support structure" and "bridging the first portion of the front body panel and
the middle portion of the front body panel with a fastener assembly while on
the transport support structure." Id.
Appellants' arguments restate the limitations of claim 1 without
further substantive explanation or argument. The Examiner has made
detailed findings of fact showing how each limitation of the claim is met by
the references and provided reasoning and rationale for the combination.
The Examiner's reasoning includes an explanation, as set forth above, as to
why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to perform the
added steps of perforating the front panel and applying the attachment
members while the garment is on the transport structure. Appellants do not
present any arguments to explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding
and/or reasoning is in error. Appellants do not identify any patentable
distinctions for claim 1, and in failing to do so, do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's findings. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) ("A statement
4
Appeal2017-007769
Application 13/727,745
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim"); In re Lovin, 652 F .3d
1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art). The rejection of claim 1 is sustained; we likewise
sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 9, and 10.
Re} ections II-IV
Claims 6, 8, 11, and 14 depend from claim 1. Br. 7, Claims App'x.
Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1 to contest the rejections
of claims 6, 8, 11, and 14. Br. 4--5. As stated supra, Appellants have not
apprised us of any deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 6, 8, 11, and 14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 and
14 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5