Ex Parte Zenker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201310379210 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/379,210 03/03/2003 David L. Zenker 16,707 4651 23556 7590 02/26/2013 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte 2300 Winchester Rd. NEENAH, WI 54956 EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID L. ZENKER, MICHAEL B. VENTURINO, SHANNON K. MELIUS, DEBRA JEAN MCDOWALL, ALAN F. SCHLEINZ, DAVID A. FELL, JULIE A. PAVELETZKE, and MARK J. BEITZ ____________________ Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE David L. Zenker et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A disposable absorbent article defining a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction, said article comprising: an operative, liquid impermeable backsheet; an operative, liquid permeable top sheet connected to said backsheet; and a multi-layer absorbent body positioned between said topsheet and said backsheet, said absorbent body further comprising: an airlaid, stabilized, first absorbent layer defining a first absorbent surface having a first absorbent area, and containing a quantity of absorbent fibers, a quantity of superabsorbent material and a quantity of thermally activated binder fiber; and a second absorbent layer located adjacent said first absorbent layer, said second absorbent layer defining a second absorbent surface having a second absorbent area, and containing a quantity of absorbent fibers and a quantity of superabsorbent material, wherein said first absorbent area is less than said second absorbent area. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Young Jackson Kielpikowski US 5,188,624 US 5,350,370 US 5,669,896 Feb. 23, 1993 Sep. 27, 1994 Sep. 23, 1997 Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 3 Chmielewski US 6,632,209 B1 Oct. 14, 2003 Rejections Appellants request our review of the following rejections:1 I. Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Young; II. Claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young; III. Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young; IV. Claims 3 and 20-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young and Jackson; V. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young and Chmielewski; VI. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young, Chmielewski, and Kielpikowski; and VII. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Young. OPINION Rejection I Appellants argue all of the claims together in contesting this rejection. We select claim 1 as representative. Appellants raise the following issues in contesting the rejection of claim 1: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Young’s fibers (preferably wood pulp fibers), which are coated with heat fusible liquid binder 1 The Examiner identified the rejections of claims 7-9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 as new grounds. Ans. 2-3. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 4 material, satisfy the “thermally activated binder fiber” recited in claim 1? (2) Does Young disclose that the insert pad 14 (first absorbent layer) has an absorbent area less than the absorbent area of dispersion pad 16 (second absorbent layer), as called for in claim 1? Discussion - Issue (1) Appellants assert the Examiner’s interpretation is not permitted by Appellants’ Specification. Reply Br. 5-6; see Spec., p. 22, last paragraph to p. 25, first paragraph. This portion of the Specification describes “[e]xamples of suitable polymeric binders,” “[s]ome commercial liquid binders,” some “non-polymeric binders,” and then “[n]on-liquid binder material,” such as “thermally activated binder material, such as thermally activated binder fiber material.” Appellants’ Specification discloses that “[b]inder fibers generally have two components and are therefore termed bi- component fibers.” Spec., p. 24. Bi-component fibers of Appellants’ invention comprise a core and a sheath that acts as the bonding agent in the stabilized absorbent structure to bond between the core and other components in the absorbent matrix. Id. Young’s insert pad 14 comprises superabsorbent particles, fibers (preferably wood pulp fibers) coated with heat fusible liquid binder material, and a relatively small amount of hydrophilic fibers, such as untreated (i.e., nonbinder coated) wood pulp fibers. Col. 5, ll. 40-49; col. 6, ll. 15-25, 49- 52. Young’s binder-coated fibers are described as “substantially continuously” coated. Col. 6, l. 39. In fact, Young discloses that substantial quantities of binder beyond the amounts needed to continuously coat the fibers can be applied; thus, sufficient binder is present to securely hold the superabsorbent particles in place. Col. 6, ll. 43-48. Young characterizes the Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 5 fibers as having a substantially continuous “sheath” of the binder. Col. 14, ll. 29-30. Preferably, Young’s superabsorbent particles are added to the coated fibers while the binder material is still wet. Col. 6, ll. 25-28. During drying the fibers stick to the superabsorbent particles. Col. 6, ll. 28-30. Using Young’s approach, the superabsorbent particles will have portions exposed for more effective liquid absorption, rather than being totally coated with binder material. Col. 6, ll. 30-33. “Heat bonding may be accomplished before or after the binder material is allowed to dry.” Col. 6, ll. 35-37. The Examiner’s reading of the claimed “thermally activated binder fiber” on Young’s binder-coated fibers is reasonable in light of Appellants’ Specification. We find nothing in the Specification’s description of thermally activated binder material that is inconsistent with or otherwise precludes the Examiner’s reading. Discussion - Issue (2) Appellants assert that “Young does not anticipate the arrangement of a first absorbent layer containing thermally activated binder fiber and having a first absorbent area and a second absorbent layer having a second absorbent area where the first absorbent area is less than the first [sic: second] absorbent area.” App. Br. 6. The Examiner points to Young’s figure 2, for example, as disclosing that the insert pad 14 (first absorbent layer) has an absorbent area less than the absorbent area of dispersion pad 16 (second absorbent layer), as called for in claim 1. Ans. 14. Further, Young discloses the insert pad has an area sized to overlie approximately 10 to 80%, more particularly 20 to 60%, of the area of the dispersion pad. Col. 9, l. 65 - col. 10, l. 1. Thus, we reject Appellants’ suggestion that Young fails to disclose the relationship between the first absorbent area and the second absorbent area recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 6 Conclusion Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 4-6, 12, 13, and 15-17, which fall with claim 1. Rejection II Appellants group claims 7-9 together in contesting this rejection. Thus, we select claim 8 as representative. In contesting this rejection, Appellants raise the following additional issues: (3) Does Young teach away from a first absorbent layer containing binder fiber? (4) Does Young render obvious the relationship between the first absorbent layer length and the absorbent body length called for in claim 8 (i.e., the first absorbent layer length is from 30% to 70% of the absorbent body length)? Discussion – Issue (3) Appellants argue that Young’s repeated disclosure that the fibers be at least partially coated, and that a lack of a continuous coating on the fibers would render difficult the adherence of significant amounts of superabsorbent material to the binder, teaches away from a first absorbent layer containing binder fiber. Reply Br. 7. According to Appellants, because a binder fiber would not necessarily coat the fibers of the first absorbent layer prior to activation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to substitute binder fiber for the liquid binder material disclosed in Young. See id. Appellants’ teaching away argument does not address the Examiner’s rejection, which was based on a finding that Young discloses binder fiber. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 7 The Examiner does not propose to modify Young’s coated fibers to form them as other than coated, and does not propose substituting binder fiber for the liquid binder coating material disclosed in Young. Discussion – Issue (4) Appellants argue that since Young does not disclose the relative sizes of the first absorbent layer and second absorbent layer, the Examiner’s routine optimization rationale is improper. Reply Br. 8. This argument does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, which does not rely on the theory of routine optimization. Rather, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to make the first absorbent layer (insert pad 14) length 30-70% of the entire absorbent body length since “Young discloses insert pad/first absorbent layer has a length approximately one-half to three fourths of the length of dispersion pad/second absorbent layer 16” and the “Young insert pad/first absorbent layer 14 and dispersion pad/second absorbent layer 16 comprise the entire absorbent body that absorbs body exudates.” Ans. 7-8. See Young, col. 10, ll. 1-4 (disclosing the insert pad length being from ½ to ¾ the length of the underlying dispersion pad). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Conclusion For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 8 and of claims 7 and 9, which fall with claim 8. Rejection III Appellants raise the following additional issue in contesting this rejection: Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 8 (5) Has the Examiner established a sound basis that Young’s insert pad possesses the tensile strengths called for in claims 18 and 19 to shift the burden to Appellants to show that this is not the case? See Ans. 8-9; Reply Br. 8-9. Discussion – Issue (5) The Examiner acknowledges that Young does not expressly disclose the tensile strengths called for in claims 18 and 19. Ans. 8. However, the Examiner finds that “Young teaches substantially the same structure and material as claimed (also as disclosed in the Specification of the Application)” and consequently determines that the claimed dry and wet tensile strengths are inherent material properties. Ans. 3. The Examiner directs our attention to Young (col. 10, l. 34 – col. 12, l. 65) and to Appellants’ Specification (p. 19, last para. – p. 25, second para.)2. Id. at 8. [W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977). This is the case whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102, prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or both jointly or alternatively. See id. at 1255. As pointed out by the Examiner, both Appellants’ first absorbent layer and Young’s insert pad 14 are made of an airlaid combination of absorbent fibers, superabsorbent material, and thermally activated binder fiber. Ans. 8. 2 These paragraphs correspond to “PG Pub 2003/0225384, [0073-90]” cited by the Examiner. Ans. 8. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 9 Moreover, Appellants’ Specification discloses that “[s]tabilized airlaid absorbent structures generally offer superior performance characteristics over traditional airformed absorbent structures” and that the use of binders as a stabilizer assists the absorbent matrix of Appellants’ invention in maintaining its integrity even under load or while saturated. Spec., p. 20, third and fourth paras. Appellants’ Specification also discloses that their first absorbent layer provides “improved wet and dry strength characteristics as compared to conventional airformed absorbent bodies.” Additionally, Appellants’ Specification cites numerous examples of binders that would be suitable as a stabilizer. Spec., p. 22, last para. – p. 25, first para. The descriptions of common absorbent fibers and superabsorbent materials in an airlaid structure stabilized by binders in the portions of Young and Appellants’ Specification alluded to by the Examiner support the Examiner’s finding that Young’s insert pad 14 and Appellants’ first absorbent layer are substantially the same, particularly in respects pertinent to dry and wet tensile strengths. Thus, the Examiner’s findings provide a sound basis to support the determination that the dry and wet tensile strength properties claimed in claims 18 and 19 are inherent properties of Young’s insert pad. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255. Appellants have not come forth with any evidence or technical reasoning to show that Young’s insert pad 14 does not possess the claimed tensile strength properties. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 10 Conclusion The Examiner established a sound basis that Young’s insert pad possesses the tensile strengths called for in claims 18 and 19, thereby shifting the burden to Appellants to show that this is not the case. Appellants have not proffered any evidence or technical reasoning to satisfy their burden. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19. We sustain the rejection. Rejection IV Appellants argue claims 3 and 20-33 together as a group. We select claim 3 as representative of the group to decide the appeal of this rejection. Appellants raise the following additional issue in contesting the rejection of claim 3: (6) Does Young teach away from a first absorbent layer containing binder fiber, let alone bi-component binder fiber? Reply Br. 9. In other words, does Young teach away from the Examiner’s proposed modification of Young to substitute the bi-component binder fiber taught by Jackson for the thermally activated binder fiber (i.e., the fibers coated with binder) of Young? Reply Br. 9- 10; Ans. 9, 15. Discussion – Issue (6) Appellants’ argument is essentially the same argument giving rise to issue (3), discussed supra. Appellants additionally assert that the Examiner incorrectly frames the issue by characterizing the substitution as a replacement of binder fiber with bi-component binder fiber. Reply Br. 10. According to Appellants, the proposed substitution is a replacement of liquid binder material of Young with the bi-component binder fiber of Jackson. Id. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 11 Appellants’ argument misapprehends or mischaracterizes the modification proposed by the Examiner. The Examiner proposes to substitute the bi-component binder fibers taught by Jackson (col. 6, ll. 6-20) for the coated fibers of Young. Ans. 9. The binder fibers of Jackson provide mechanical and adhesive bonding when heated to bond their sheaths to surrounding materials (col. 6, ll. 18-20). In other words, the sheath of Jackson’s bi-component fiber serves the same function as the sheath/coating of Young’s coated fiber. See Young, col. 6, ll. 25-48; col. 14, ll. 25-45. Thus, we reject Appellants’ argument that Young teaches away from substituting the bi-component binder fibers taught by Jackson for the coated fibers of Young, as proposed by the Examiner. Conclusion Young does not teach away from the Examiner’s proposed modification of Young to substitute the bi-component binder fiber taught by Jackson for the thermally activated binder fiber (i.e., the fibers coated with binder) of Young. Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Young and Jackson. We sustain the rejection of claim 3 and of claims 20-33, which fall with claim 3. Rejections V-VII In contesting these rejections, Appellants merely rely on their arguments asserted against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 10-12. These arguments do not apprise us of error, for the reasons discussed supra. We sustain the rejections of claims 10, 11, and 14. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-33 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-009528 Application 10/379,210 12 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation