The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2021

2020004388 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2021)

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.
14/967,440 12/14/2015 Ronald Joseph Zink II 13654 5419
27752 7590 05/14/2021
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2021 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 RONALD JOSEPH ZINK II and LINDA ANN SAUER
__________

Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below,
we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “The Procter
& Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to absorbent articles, and more
particularly, to absorbent articles with components having graphics
including zones of relatively high print densities and zones of relatively low
print densities, wherein the zones of relatively low print densities are aligned
between assembled components [to] form a contiguous design.” Spec. 1:9–
12. Apparatus claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 1–5. Claim
1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An absorbent article comprising:
a first elastic belt extending laterally from a first
longitudinal side edge to a second longitudinal side edge, and
extending longitudinally from an outer lateral end edge to an
inner lateral end edge, the first elastic belt further comprising a
first end region and a laterally opposing second end region
separated from each other by a central region;
a second elastic belt extending laterally from a first
longitudinal side edge to a second longitudinal side edge, and
extending longitudinally from an outer lateral end edge to an
inner lateral end edge, the second elastic belt further comprising
a first end region and a laterally opposing second end region
separated from each other by a central region;
a chassis comprising, a topsheet, a backsheet, and an
absorbent core positioned between the topsheet and the
backsheet, the chassis further comprising a first waist region and
a second waist region separated from each other by a crotch
region, wherein the first waist region is connected with the
central region of the first elastic belt and the second waist region
is connected with the central region of the second elastic belt;
a first graphic on the first elastic belt, the first graphic
comprising a first zone comprising a first maximum print density
and a second zone comprising a second maximum print density,
wherein the second maximum print density is about 30% of the
first maximum print density, wherein the first zone fades to the
second zone, and wherein the second zone extends from the first
zone to the first longitudinal side edge of the first elastic belt;
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

3
a second graphic on the second elastic belt, the second
graphic comprising a first zone comprising a first maximum print
density and a second zone comprising a second maximum print
density, wherein the second maximum print density is about 30%
of the first maximum print density, wherein the first zone fades
to the second zone, and wherein the second zone extends from
the first zone to the first longitudinal side edge of the second
elastic belt; and
wherein the first end region of the first elastic belt is
connected with the first end region of the second elastic belt such
that the second zone of the first graphic is aligned with the second
zone of the second graphic to form a contiguous design; and
wherein the second maximum print density of the second
graphic is about equal to the second maximum print density of
the first graphic.
REFERENCES

Name Reference Date
Sosalla et al. (“Sosalla”) US 2003/0073966 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Misek et al. (“Misek”) US 2011/0088828 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Schneider et al.
(“Schneider”)
US 2013/0255862 A1 Oct. 3, 2013

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Schneider and Sosalla. Final Act. 5.3

2 “The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) has been
withdrawn.” Ans. 21.
3 In the Answer under the header “NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION,”
the Examiner lists the rejection of claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Schneider and Sosalla and the rejection of claims 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Sosalla and Misek. Ans. 3–21. However, it appears that the New
Grounds of Rejection was intended to apply only to independent claims 10
and 16 (and thus, also their respective dependent claims) because the
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

4
Claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sosalla and Misek. Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–15
as obvious over Schneider and Sosalla
Appellant argues claims 1–9 together. See Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appellant also argues claims 10–15 together. See Appeal Br. 10–11. We
select claims 1 and 10 for review, with the remaining claims standing or
falling with their respectively grouped claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites
a first graphic on the first elastic belt, the first graphic
comprising a first zone comprising a first maximum print density
and a second zone comprising a second maximum print density,
wherein the second maximum print density is about 30% of the
first maximum print density, wherein the first zone fades to the
second zone, and wherein the second zone extends from the first
zone to the first longitudinal side edge of the first elastic belt.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Claim 1 also recites
a second graphic on the second elastic belt, the second
graphic comprising a first zone comprising a first maximum print
density and a second zone comprising a second maximum print

substance of the grounds of rejection for the other claims appears unchanged
and in the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer, the Examiner
states that the “screen values and print densities” aspects of the claimed
subject matter “are now addressed in the New Grounds of Rejection of claim
10 above” and “the second maximum print density is about 30% of the first
maximum print density” aspect of claim 16 “is addressed in the New
Grounds of Rejection above.” Ans. 23.
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

5
density, wherein the second maximum print density is about 30%
of the first maximum print density, wherein the first zone fades
to the second zone, and wherein the second zone extends from
the first zone to the first longitudinal side edge of the second
elastic belt.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies primarily on Sosalla for such teachings.4 Final
Act. 6–8. Appellant disagrees with this assessment stating, “[t]he Examiner
commits error in asserting that Sosalla teaches or suggests the above claim
limitations.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant states,
the Examiner commits error in failing to show where Sosalla
teaches or suggests a graphic with the first and second zones as
claimed, and adjusting the print densities in first and second
zones of the graphic for the purpose of allowing the first zone of
that graphic to stand out.
Appeal Br. 10.
However, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner erred in
identifying Sosalla’s paragraphs 3, 4, 17, 30, 40, and 41 and Figures 1 and 3
as disclosing such teachings. See Final Act. 6–8. For example, paragraph 4
of Sosalla discloses “the use of training pants having an improved aesthetic
appearance.” Paragraph 17 discusses the use of “a color gradation [that
provides] a coloration which varies in intensity over the area from a higher
intensity of color to a lower intensity of color.” See also Sosalla ¶¶ 40 (“a
smooth gradient providing a gradual fade”), 41 (“the gradation may be
provided by varying the dot (pixel) density of the ink over a given surface”).

4 The Examiner relies on Schneider for disclosing an absorbent article
having a first elastic belt, a second elastic belt, and a chassis. Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

6
Thus, it is not made clear by Appellant where Sosalla fails to teach or
suggest such graphics.
Appellant also notes that claim 1 includes the limitation of the second
maximum print density being “about 30% of the first maximum print
density.” Appeal Br. 9. On this point, the Examiner references Figure 3 of
Sosalla, which depicts zones of different densities, and reasons that a skilled
person could adjust the density of one zone to be “less than or equal to about
30% of” another so as to “allow[] the first print density to stand out as
desired.” Final Act. 8. In other words, we understand the Examiner is
relying upon design choice for this “about 30%” limitation in view of
Sosalla’s discussion above of fading or gradations expressed in at least
paragraphs 17, 40, and 41.
The Examiner also states that “[i]t is further noted that a 30%
difference in print density is not described in the present specification as
having any criticality.” Ans. 22. Indeed, Appellant’s Specification states
[i]n some embodiments, the maximum print density of the low
intensity zone may be less than or equal to about 30% of the
maximum print density of the high intensity zone. In some
embodiments, the maximum print density of the low intensity
zone may be less than or equal to about 25% of the maximum
print density of the high intensity zone. In some embodiments,
the maximum print density of the low intensity zone may be less
than or equal to about 10% of the maximum print density of the
high intensity zone.
Spec. 15:15–20.5 In view of this discussion in Appellant’s Specification of
30%, 25% and 10% variations, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s

5 We note that even presuming the printed material has alignment
functionality (see Appeal Br. 6–8), such functionality appears to be in the
form of intended use in view of claim 1’s limitation requiring “the second
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

7
Specification does not disclose any criticality with respect to the recited
“about 30%” difference between the print densities of the graphics, as
claimed.
The Examiner also states that “Sosalla discloses in paragraph [0038]
that the areas of low color intensity allow features such as the visual
indicator graphics are not obscured.” Ans. 22. Indeed, paragraph 38 states
the higher intensity coloration can be used to create appearance
features which increase the aesthetic appearance of the article[
and] active graphics (or other visible elements contemplated by
this invention), when employed, can be placed at locations where
the coloration is of lower intensity, or where coloration is absent
altogether, so that the graphics will not be obscured by the more
intense coloration.
Hence, paragraph 38 of Sosalla likewise addresses a desire for the graphics
to “stand out,” as also expressed by Appellant. Appeal Br. 10.
Furthermore, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner’s reason
for modifying Schneider’s absorbent article in view of Sosalla’s teachings
above (i.e., “to adjust the second maximum print density [to be] less than or
equal to about 30% of the first maximum print density so that [it] allows the
first print density to stand out as desired”) is faulty. Final Act. 8; see also
Ans. 22 (responding that Appellant “does not point out any specific errors”).

zone of the first graphic is aligned with the second zone of the second
graphic to form a contiguous design.” See also Spec. 1:31–2:2 (disclosing
that “imprecise placement of one printed component onto another printed
component may be visibly highlighted when graphics on the separate
components appear disjointed and/or misaligned when the components are
combined”).
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

8
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Schneider and Sosalla.
Claim 10
Appellant repeats the above arguments concerning the Examiner’s
application of Sosalla in the combination of cited art, namely that “[t]he
Examiner commits error in asserting that Sosalla teaches or suggests the
above claim limitations” and that “[t]he Examiner commits further error by
failing to articulate reasons as to why it would have been obvious to modify
Sosalla to include the claimed relative print densities in the fashion
claimed.” Appeal Br. 11. For similar reasons already discussed, Appellant’s
contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
We also wish to point out that merely reciting claim limitations and
asserting that the cited art lacks such teachings (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 10, 11)
fails to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and is thus
unpersuasive of Examiner error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). Additionally, as discussed in footnote 3 above, claim 10 is
rejected under “NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION” (see Ans. 23) and
Appellant does not challenge these New Grounds. As such, “[i]f appellant
fails to timely file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or a reply brief in response to
an examiner’s answer that contains a new ground of rejection, the appeal
will be sua sponte dismissed as to the claims subject to the new ground of
rejection.” MPEP § 1207.03(c)(III) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020)
(discussing 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b)).
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

9
For the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10–15 and, alternatively, dismiss the appeal as to claims
10–15 subject to the new ground of rejection.
The rejection of claims 16–20
as obvious over Sosalla and Misek
Appellant argues claims 16–20 together. See Appeal Br. 11–13. We
select claim 16 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling
with claim 16.
Here, Appellant provides arguments regarding the teachings of
Sosalla similar to those presented above regarding independent claims 1 and
10 (and also fails to respond to the New Grounds of Rejection). See Appeal
Br. 12–13. Consequently, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16–20 as being unpatentable over Sosalla and Misek and, in the
alternative, dismiss the appeal of such claims subject to the new ground of
rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Schneider, Sosalla 1–15
16–20 103 Sosalla, Misek 16–20
Overall
Outcome
1–206

6 Noting that the appeal of claims 10–20 was also alternatively dismissed
subject to the new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2020-004388
Application 14/967,440

10
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED