2019004700 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2020)

The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 23, 2020

2019004700 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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. 15/240,259 08/18/2016 Beth Ann SCHUBERT 14466L 1674 27752 7590 07/23/2020 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER MRUK, BRIAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/23/2020 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 BETH ANN SCHUBERT, RAJAN KESHAV PANANDIKER, LUKE ANDREW ZANNONI, STEPHANIE ANN URBIN, and MARK ROBERT SIVIK ____________ Appeal 2019-004700 Application 15/240,259 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–23 as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ponder (US 2011/0201533 A1; pub. Aug. 18, 2011). The Examiner also rejected claims 1–18, 21, and 23 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting based on 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 Procter & Gamble Company (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2019-004700 Application 15/240,259 2 various claims of four different copending applications (Final Action 2, 3). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Upon consideration of the evidence and each of Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed January 22, 2019, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections (e.g., Ans. 3–5 (mailed March 18, 2019)). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, requires “a material selected from the group consisting of” (i), (ii), and (iii) (Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 8–10). The claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20 (CCPA 1980). This language means the claim encompasses prior art that teaches or suggests any one of the three listed alternatives. Appellant’s arguments only focus on Ponder’s lack of a teaching or suggestion of component (ii) which recites formula (I). Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s correct position that the claims do not require the disputed component of formula (I) listed in clause (ii). See, e.g., MPEP § 2117 Markush Claims; also, MPEP § 2111.03. Appellant also has not presented any arguments with respect to any of the obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting rejections. Accordingly, we summarily affirm these rejections. Appeal 2019-004700 Application 15/240,259 3 Since Appellant has not presented any persuasive arguments sufficient to rebut any of the Examiner’s rejections, it has not shown any reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–23 102 Ponder 1–23 1–23 103 Ponder 1–23 1–18, 21, 23 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15/698,868 1–18, 21, 23 1–18, 21, 23 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15/700,432 1–18, 21, 23 1–18, 21, 23 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15/713,762 (now US 10,265,434 B2) 1–18, 21, 23 1–18, 21, 23 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15/713,770 (now US 10,265,249 B2) 1–18, 21, 23 Overall Outcome 1–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED