Ex Parte Wei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

13491634 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2017)

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.
13/491,634 06/08/2012 Karl Shiqing Wei 12154M 1017
27752 7590 09/25/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 KARL SHIQING WEI, QING STELLA,
VICTOR MANUEL ARREDONDO, WEI JI,
WILLIAM RANDALL BELCHER, ELTON LUIS MENON,
and DEBRA ANN TIREY
Appeal 2016-003336
Application 13/491,634
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
December 5, 2014 decision finally rejecting claims 1—5, 7—16, and 18—20
(“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as The Proctor & Gamble
Company (Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-003336
Application 13/491,634
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to a personal care composition which
includes a cleansing phase and a benefit phase (Abstract). The cleansing phase
includes a surfactant, and the benefit phase includes a benefit agent comprising a
sucrose polyester with an iodine value of 3 or more (id.). Details of the claimed
invention are set forth in representative claim 1, which is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added):
1. A personal care composition comprising: at least a cleansing
phase and a benefit phase wherein:
said structured cleansing phase comprises:
a) an aqueous surfactant phase comprising from about 5%
to about 20%, by weight of said personal care composition, of an
anionic surfactant,
b) at least one of the following: an amphoteric surfactant
and a zwitterionic surfactant;
c) a structuring system comprising an electrolyte:
said benefit phase comprises:
a) from 0.1 % to about 50%, by weight of said personal care
composition, of a benefit agent comprising a sucrose polyester,
wherein the sucrose polyester has an iodine value of 3 or more.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1—5, 7—16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wei.2 Appellants do not offer separate arguments
in connection with any of the claims (see, Br. 1—3). Accordingly, we focus
our discussion on the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Wei.
The Examiner finds that Wei discloses a personal care composition
which comprises a structured surfactant phase and an oil benefit phase (Final
Act. 2, citing Wei 17). The Examiner further finds that Wei teaches that its
2 Wei, et al., US 2010/0158830 Al, published June 24, 2010.
2
Appeal 2016-003336
Application 13/491,634
structured surfactant phase comprises both anionic and amphoteric
surfactants, and also electrolytes (Final Act. 2, citing Wei 7—8, 38). The
Examiner also finds that Wei discloses the presence of sucrose esters in the
benefit phase (Final Act. 2, Ans. 3, citing Wei Table I, 36, 48).
The Examiner further finds that Wei is silent with respect to the iodine
values of the sucrose esters, but that these values would have been
encompassed by the sucrose esters disclosed by Wei (Final Act. 3).
Appellants do not challenge this finding.
Instead, Appellants argue that Wei does not teach, suggest, or
otherwise render obvious inclusion of the sucrose polyesters in the benefit
phase and, therefore, that the Examiner has not made out a prima facie case
of obviousness (Br. 2).
However, the Examiner finds that: (a) Wei discloses that its benefit
phase can include a low HLB emulsifier (Ans. 3, citing Wei 148), and (b) an
example of a low HLB emulsifier is sucrose cocoate (Ans. 2, citing Wei 1 53,
Table 1). Appellants do not challenge these findings and, therefore, have not
shown reversible error in them.
Accordingly, based on the arguments set forth in Appellants’ brief and
the evidence of record, Appellants have not shown reversible error in the
obviousness rejection over Wei. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wei.
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
3