The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2022

2021004843 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2022)

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. 15/831,416 12/05/2017 Ariel LEBRON 14615 5809 27752 7590 03/17/2022 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 03/17/2022 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 ARIEL LEBRON, JOHN FERRER, JOHN ANDREW STRASEMEIER, NICHOLAS DAVID VETTER, ALRICK VINCENT WARNER, PAUL THOMAS WEISMAN, and HUI YANG __________ Appeal 2021-004843 Application 15/831,416 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LEE L. STEPINA, 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. See Appeal Br. 2, Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004843 Application 15/831,416 2 For the reasons explained below, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to articles comprising energy curable inks, especially absorbent articles comprising energy curable inks.” Spec. 1:5-6. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claims 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A nonwoven substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; wherein the first surface comprises one or more printed portions, wherein at least one printed portion comprises a curable ink; and wherein the at least one printed portion comprises a Crosslinking Index of about 330 or less as determined by the Crosslinking Index Test Method herein and an Ink Adhesion Rating (Mineral Oil) of about 1.30 or greater as determined by the Ink Adhesion Rating Test Method herein. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Norcini et al. (“Norcini”) US 7,534,880 B2 May 19, 2009 Maldonado et al. (“Maldonado”) US 8,637,727 B2 Jan. 28, 2014 Weisman et al. (“Weisman”) US 2015/0159330 A1 June 11, 2015 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maldonado, Norcini, and Weisman. ANALYSIS In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner issued a New Ground of Rejection explaining that “[t]he New Grounds are intended to further clarify Appeal 2021-004843 Application 15/831,416 3 and elucidate the Examiner’s position . . . by referring to citations in Norcini that had not been referenced in the final Office action.” Ans. 10; see also Ans. 3. Appellant acknowledges “page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer” where this New Ground of Rejection was set forth by the Examiner. Reply Br. 2. Independent claims 1 and 12 both recite a range that is “determined by the Crosslinking Index Test Method herein.” Independent claim 17 varies from the above reciting a range that “comprises a Crosslinking Index.” All three independent claims require an investigation into Appellant’s Specification to ascertain the metes and bounds of this “Crosslinking Index.”2 Appellant’s Specification describes a “Crosslinking Index” as measurements that “are made at a printed site and an adjacent non-printed site.” Spec. 32:33-34. Appellant’s Specification provides instruction to “[s]elect a non-bonded, inked site on the substrate for measurement” and to “[s]elect an adjacent site on the substrate that is not printed.” Spec. 33:6-8. After such selection, Appellant’s Specification instructs to “collect an ‘inked’ scan” and to “collect a non-inked scan.” Spec. 33:7-9. Hence, to be consistent with Appellant’s Specification, the recited “Crosslinking Index” entails the collection of data from an inked and a non-inked site. Appellant reiterates this point stating, “the claimed Crosslinking Index . . . compares printed and adjacent non-printed areas.” Reply Br. 3 (citing “Specification at pg. 32, line 33 through pg. 33, line 25”). 2 Claims must be construed “in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appeal 2021-004843 Application 15/831,416 4 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Norcini for this disclosure. See Ans. 3 (“[w]ith respect to the Crosslinking Index, Norcini discloses . . .”). However, the portions of Norcini relied upon (i.e., Norcini 12:50-52; 12:63-67; 14:34-52 (see Ans. 3)) do not disclose the collection of data from inked and non-inked sites. Instead, Norcini teaches a photopolymersiable system that “is laid with a thickness of 50 microns on a varnished cardboard” and that “[t]he thickness of the coating after photocrosslinking is 37 micron.” Norcini 12:55- 62; see also Norcini 14:34-36. Afterwards, measurements of different areas of the coating are taken and “an index of the crosslinking degree of the system” is ascertained. Norcini 14:40-52. Hence, Norcini teaches a comparison of two inked portions of the substrate, not between an inked and a non-inked portion as the claim term “Crosslinking Index” requires (see above). The Examiner is silent on this point, although there are very few comparisons to try, i.e., inked/inked, inked/non-inked, and non-inked/non- inked.3 Appellant, on the other hand, states, “the claimed crosslinking index is different from the described crosslinking index of Norcini.” Reply Br. 5. Based on the record presented, we agree with Appellant. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these independent claims. This decision is based upon the interpretation of “Crosslinking Index” above as involving data ascertained from both inked and non-inked sites, not just from inked sites as in 3 When addressing a different limitation (“ΔE*”) recited only in independent claims 12 and 17, the Examiner mentions “comparing two colors within a printed graphic, or comparing a printed graphic to a non-printed area of the substrate” (Ans. 13), but is otherwise silent regarding such a comparison as applied to the claim term “Crosslinking Index.” Appeal 2021-004843 Application 15/831,416 5 Norcini. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 as being obvious in view of Maldonado, Norcini, and Weisman. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 103 Maldonado, Norcini, Weisman 1-20 REVERSED