GPCP IP Holdings LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2020

14821215 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2020)

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.
14/821,215 08/07/2015 Steven B. Mattheeussen 30207 (38201-0304) 5586
109963 7590 04/21/2020
GP-Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
999 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2020 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):
gplawpatents@gapac.com
koch_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN B. MATTHEEUSSEN, GENEVIEVE TAYLOR,
ROY J. ROZEK, ANTONIO M. CITTADINO, ERIC PETERSON,
RYAN A. GOLTZ, and JOHN LAITALA
____________

Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and MICHAEL L. WOODS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–13, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies GPCP IP Holdings LLC, related to
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Georgia-Pacific LLC, ultimately
Koch Industries, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “sheet product dispensers.” Spec.
¶ 102. Claims 1, 28, and 29 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of dispensing a user-determined length of sheet
product from a roll of the sheet produce via a sheet product
dispenser, the method comprising:
providing the roll of sheet product rotatably supported by
the sheet product dispenser for dispensing sheet product
therefrom, wherein the roll of sheet product rotates in response
to a pull force applied to a tail portion of the roll of sheet product;
and
providing, via the sheet product dispenser, a pull force
resistance opposing the rotation of the roll of sheet product,
wherein the pull force resistance is between 36 grams-force and
96 grams-force throughout a majority of a life of the roll of sheet
product.

THE REJECTIONS2
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Geleziunas US 4,832,271 May 23, 1989
Grasso US 6,202,956 B1 Mar. 20, 2001
Madsen WO 2005/120985 A1 Dec. 22, 2005

2 The Examiner objects to claims 14–26 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, however, the Examiner determines claims 14–16 would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and intervening claims. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
3
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1–6, 11–13, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Geleziunas and
Madsen.
II. Claim 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Geleziunas, Madsen, and Grasso.

OPINION
Rejection I
Independent 1 and claims 2–6 and 11–13
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Geleziunas discloses a method of dispensing a user-determined length
of sheet product from a roll of the sheet product (i.e., roll of paper
towels at 120) via sheet product dispenser 10, wherein a pull force
resistance, via control member 14, opposes rotation of the roll, as
claimed. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Geleziunas, Figs. 1–6). The Examiner
determines that Geleziunas does not disclose that the pull force
resistance is between 36 grams-force and 96 grams-force throughout a
majority of a life of the roll of sheet product, as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Madsen for disclosing various examples, “in
which the average dispensing force ranges from 36–109 grams of
force.” Final Act. 3 (citing Madsen, p. 16 (Table 1, Examples 1–11)).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to provide
Geleziunas with the ability to maintain a dispensing force, as taught in
Madsen, for the purpose of smoothly and reliably dispensing the roll
of tissue during the life of the roll of product.” Id.
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
4
Appellant argues that Madsen fails to disclose “a sheet product
dispenser providing a pull force resistance that is between 36 grams-force
and 96 grams-force throughout a majority of a life of a roll of sheet product
dispensed thereby,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. In support, Appellant
submits
Madsen relates to “the average dispensing force as a stack of
facial tissue sheets is dispensed from the first sheet to the last
sheet.” . . . Madsen acknowledges that “the first sheets dispensed
will have a higher force than the last sheets dispensed since the
sheets are more tightly packed when the dispenser is full.” . . .
However, Madsen does not describe the extent to which the
dispensing force varies throughout the life of the stack of sheets
dispensed by the example dispensers.
Id. at 8–9 (citing, e.g., Madsen 21:27–30).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Specification
provides express definitions for the claim language “a majority of a life of
the roll of sheet product”: (i) “majority” means “greater than 50%” (Spec.
¶ 146); and (ii) “life of a roll sheet product” means “a duration of time over
which sheet product is available to be dispensed from a particular roll of
sheet product” (id. ¶ 152). Thus, claim 1 requires providing a pull force
resistance between 36 grams-force and 96 grams-force throughout greater
than 50% of the duration of time over which the sheet product is available to
be dispensed from a particular roll of sheet product.
Madsen discloses generally that drag force (or pull force resistance)
for dispensing sheets—“either in a stack or rolled configuration” (e.g.,
Madsen 4:3 (emphasis added))—is dependent on parameters such as “the
thickness of the material forming the perimeter of the dispensing opening or
adjacent to the dispensing opening (id. at 6:1–3) and “the size and shape of
the dispensing opening” (id. at 7:11–12). More specifically, Table 1 of
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
5
Madsen reports an average drag force for various dispenser configurations
within the claimed range of between 36 grams-force and 96 grams-force for
discrete sheets of stacked sheet products. Id. at 16, Table 1. Madsen
discloses, with particular reference to the “Average Dispensing Force Test,”
that “[t]he objective of the test is to measure the average dispensing force as
a stack of facial tissue sheets is dispensed from the first sheet to the last
sheet,” recognizing, as argued by Appellant, that “the first sheets dispensed
will have a higher force than the last sheets dispensed since the sheets are
more tightly packed when the dispenser is full.” Id. at 21. Madsen further
discloses the Average Dispensing Force Test protocol as follows:
[r]ecord the peak dispensing force in grams for each sheet
removed from the dispenser until all sheets are dispensed.
Determine the average dispensing force from the first sheet to the
last sheet by dividing the sum of the dispensing force for all pulls
by the number of pulls. . . . Record the average dispensing force
to the nearest gram.
Id. at 24; see also Reply Br. 5 (“it is improper to equate any average
dispensing force to the specifically claimed range of pull force resistance
and specific length of time . . . .”).
As argued by Appellant (Reply Br. 5), because Madsen does not
disclose the variance of the measured pull force resistance values for the
stack of sheets tested, Madsen fails to disclose whether the measured values
are within the claimed range for greater than 50% of the number of sheets
dispensed. Thus, the Examiner errs by relying on the average pull force
resistance values reported in Madsen’s Table 1 for disclosing a pull force
resistance between 36 grams-force and 96 grams-force throughout a majority
of a life of a sheet product, as claimed.
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
6
Additionally, the pull force resistance values tabulated in Madsen are
for the life of a stack of discrete sheet products, as compared to Gelezuinas’s
dispenser for a roll of sheet products, and we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s rationale fails to address sufficiently why one skilled in the art
would apply pull force resistance values for a stacked sheet dispenser to a
roll dispenser. See Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 3–5. In other words,
although the Examiner finds that both types of dispensers have a pull force
for “only one sheet . . . coming out at a time,” the Examiner does not address
how pull force resistance may be considered similarly for roll dispensers
having roll supporting mechanisms, as compared to stacked sheet dispensers
having parameters relative to their dispenser openings, as taught in Madsen
supra. Ans. 3. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner’s proposed
modification appears to be based improperly on hindsight. See Appeal Br.
13–14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2–6 and 11–13 depending therefrom.
Independent claim 28
Independent claim 28 recites, in relevant part:
a roll support mechanism configured to . . . provide a first pull
force resistance . . . and a resistance mechanism configured to . .
. provide second pull force resistance . . . ; wherein a sum of the
first pull force resistance and the second pull force resistance is
between 36 grams-force and 96 grams-force through a majority
of a life of the roll of sheet product.
Appeal Br. 25.
The Examiner finds that Geleziunas disclose a roll support mechanism
(i.e., bottom wall 22, ribs 30) configured to provide a first pull force
resistance, and also a resistance mechanism (i.e., control part 84 of control
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
7
member 14) configured to provide a second pull force resistance. Final Act.
4 (citing Geleziunas, Figs. 1–6). The Examiner relies on Madsen for
disclosing “average dispensing force ranges from 36–109 grams of force,”
and reasons that it would have been obvious “to provide Geleziunas with the
ability to maintain a dispensing force, as taught by Madsen, for the purpose
of smoothly and reliably dispensing the roll of tissue during the life of the
roll product.” Id. at 5 (citing Madsen, p. 16 (Table 1, Examples 1–11)).
Appellant presents the same argument regarding Madsen’s disclosure
of an average of values, as compared to the claimed values throughout a
majority of the life of a dispensed product, as presented for independent
claim 1 supra. Appeal Br. 17–18. Again, we agree, for the reasons
presented supra, that the Examiner’s reliance on Madsen’s disclosure of
average values of a dispensing force for disclosing a pull force resistance in
the claimed range through a majority of a life of a dispensed sheet product is
in error. Additionally, as determined supra, the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient rationale for applying Madsen’s pull force resistance values for a
stacked sheet dispenser to Geleziunas’ roll dispenser, wherein the
Examiner’s proposed modification appears to be based improperly on
hindsight. See Appeal Br. 17.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 28.
Independent claim 29
Independent claim 29 recites, in relevant part:
a roll support mechanism configured to . . . provide a first pull
force resistance . . . and a resistance mechanism configured to . .
. provide second pull force resistance . . . ; wherein a sum of the
first pull force resistance and the second pull force resistance is
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
8
substantially constant throughout a majority of a life of the roll
sheet product.
Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Geleziunas discloses a roll support
mechanism (i.e., bottom wall 22, ribs 30) configured to provide a first pull
force resistance, and also a resistance mechanism (i.e., control part 84)
configured to provide a second pull force resistance. Final Act. 5 (citing
Geleziunas, Figs. 1–6). The Examiner relies on Madsen for disclosing
“average dispensing force ranges from 36–109 grams of force,” and reasons
that it would have been obvious “to provide Geleziunas with the ability to
maintain a dispensing force, as taught by Madsen, for the purpose of
smoothly and reliably dispensing the roll of tissue during the life of the roll
product.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Madsen, p. 16 (Table 1, Examples 1–11)).
Appellant submits correctly that the Specification provides an express
definition of the claim term “substantially constant”: “the pull force
resistance varies by no more than ten percent (10%) from a mean value.”
Appeal Br. 19 (quoting Spec. ¶ 154). Appellant argues that “the dispensing
force data [of Madsen] does not actually indicate that any of the example
dispensers provides a dispensing force that is substantially constant
throughout a majority of a life of the stack of sheets,” but rather, “Madsen
acknowledges that ‘the first sheets dispensed will have a higher force than
the last sheets dispensed since the sheets are more tightly packed when the
dispenser is full.’” Appeal Br. 18–19.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the disclosure of an
average of pull force values does not disclose substantially constant pull
force values throughout a majority of a life of Madsen’s stack of individual
sheet products. Additionally, as determined supra, the Examiner fails to
Appeal 2019-006047
Application 14/821,215
9
provide sufficient rationale for applying Madsen’s pull force resistance
values for a stacked sheet dispenser to Geleziunas’ roll dispenser, wherein
the Examiner’s proposed modification appears to be based improperly on
hindsight. See Appeal Br. 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 29.
Rejection II
The Examiner’s reliance on Grasso for disclosing a coreless roll of
sheet product and sheet product comprised of bath tissue does not cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings relative to Madsen, as discussed
supra. Final Act. 6–7.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10, which depend from
independent claim 1.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 11–
13, 28, 29
103 Geleziunas, Madsen 1–6, 11–13, 28,
29
7–10 103 Geleziunas, Madsen,
Grasso
7–10
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 28, 29
REVERSED