The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2020

15221626 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
15/221,626 07/28/2016 Arman Ashraf 13968M 3274
27752 7590 09/11/2020
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEGHA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2020 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):
centraldocket.im@pg.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMAN ASHRAF and PAUL THOMAS WEISMAN
Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM., N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s November 20, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9,
and 11–14. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
The Proctor & Gamble Company (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a spunbond nonwoven fabric
(Abstract). The fabric has a first surface and second surface, and at least a
first and second visually discernable zone on at least one of the surfaces
(id.). Each of the first and second zones has a pattern of three-dimensional
features (Appeal Br. 2). Each of the three-dimensional features defines a
microzone comprising a first region and a second region (id.). The first and
second regions have a difference in values for basis weight, wherein the
difference in values for basis weight for at least one of the microzones in the
first zone is different from the difference in values for basis weight for at
least one of the microzones in the second zone, wherein the basis weight of
every region of the spunbond nonwoven fabric is greater than zero (id.).
Details of the claimed invention are set forth in claim 1, which is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix (emphasis added):
1. A spunbond nonwoven fabric comprising:
a. a first surface and a second surface and at least a first
and second visually discernible zone on at least one of the first
and second surface, each of the first and second zones having a
pattern of three-dimensional features, each of the three-
dimensional features defining a microzone comprising a first
region and a second region, the first and second regions having
a difference in values for basis weight, and
b. wherein the difference in values for basis weight for at
least one of the microzones in the first zone is different from the
difference in values for basis weight for at least one of the
microzones in the second zone, wherein the basis weight of
every region of the spunbond nonwoven fabric is greater than
zero.

Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kuroda et al. US 2005/0148971 A1 July 7, 2005
Kudo et al. US 2006/0189954 A1 August 24, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Kudo.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Kuroda teaches each element of claim 1,
except that Kuroda does not teach that its non-woven fabric is spunbonded
(Final Act. 2–4, citing Kuroda, Figs. 1–4, ¶¶ 68, 70, 72, 82–84). In
particular, the Examiner relies on the disclosures relating to the apertures in
Kuroda’s fabric as disclosing the claimed relative basis weights for the
various regions and microzones (Final Act. 3). In particular, the Examiner
states on page 3–4 of the Answer that:
The spunbond nonwoven fabric of the claim requires a first
zone and second zone. The first and second zones both include
a pattern of 3D features. The 3D features each define a
microzone which includes first and second regions. As set forth
in the office action (page 3) the prior art teaches first and
second zones (20A and 20B); the first and second zone both
include a pattern of 3D feature (provided by the array of holes).
The pattern includes microzones with first (the fabric) and
second regions (the hole sidewall).

. . . [T]he Examiner has interpreted the second region of the
first zone to be a sidewall 25b of the hole 25 and the first
region of the first zone to be the remainder of the material
layer 3 [see annotated FIG. 3 from Kuroda below]. In the
Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
4
Examiner's annotated figure, the second regions have been
boxed in, and the first regions are the material segments
between the boxes. As shown in the figure, the entire fabric
material can be divided into first regions and second regions.
The holes are not either the first region or the second region
because there is no fabric material in the hole. Stated another
way, the holes are not a region of the fabric, and thus their
basis weight (or lack thereof) is not relevant to the claimed
invention (emphasis added).

An annotated version of Kuroda’s FIG. 3 shows an enlarged sectional
view showing how liquid passage holes are apertured in a front
portion of Kuroda’s fabric.

Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s reasoning with
respect to the relative basis weights for the regions and microzones
(see Appeal Br. 3–4). Appellant argues that because portions of
Kuroda’s fabric have holes (which inherently have a basis weight of
zero), Kuroda’s fabric does not teach the limitation “wherein the basis
weight of every region of the spunbond nonwoven fabric is greater
than zero” (Appeal Br. 4).
The Examiner counters with the argument that “one of ordinary
skill in art would not consider a hole to be part of the fabric” (Ans. 3).
Thus, the resolution of this appeal depends on whether the claim
language “wherein the basis weight of every region . . . is greater than
zero” (emphasis added) excludes a fabric with holes. That
Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
5
determination, in turn, depends on the meaning of “every region” as
used in the claim.
Appellant takes the position that:
It is very clear from the [Appellant’s] specification and
drawings that the area of the nonwoven fabric is broken down
into zones, and those zones are broken down into three
dimensional features, and those three-dimensional features are
broken down into microzones, and those microzones are broken
down into regions. In other words, the entire nonwoven fabric
consists of regions, as defined by the [Appellant’s]
specification and drawings. If every region of the nonwoven
fabric has a basis weight greater than zero, there cannot be
any holes present in the nonwoven fabric.

(Appeal Br. 4, emphasis added). In essence, Appellant argues that the
claim language at issue necessarily excludes any fabric with holes,
though Appellant does not direct us to any specific portion of the
Specification which teaches or suggests this interpretation.
Nevertheless, the limitation at issue was found in original claim
6, and thus is part of the original disclosure. In order for a region to
have a basis weight of zero, it has to be a hole (i.e., be empty). If
there is material present in a region of the fabric, the basis weight for
that region is necessarily greater than zero. Therefore, the claim
construction advocated by the Examiner would mean that the
limitation at issue is meaningless because every single region of the
fabric which is not a hole would necessarily have a basis weight
greater than zero. Such an interpretation is not reasonable. See, e.g.,
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (claims must be interpreted with an eye toward
Appeal 2019-006378
Application 15/221,626
6
giving effect to all terms in the claim); Unique Concepts, Inc. v.
Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established that the limitation “wherein the basis weight of every
region . . . is greater than zero” would have been obvious in view of
the prior art. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 9,
11–14
103 Kuroda, Kudo 1, 3, 4, 9,
11–14

REVERSED