2021001644 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2021)

The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 23, 2021

2021001644 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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. 15/344,221 11/04/2016 Christopher Philip Bewick-Sonntag 14095M 8178 27752 7590 09/23/2021 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2021 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 CHRISTOPHER PHILIP BEWICK-SONNTAG, CLINT ADAM MORROW, DEAN LARRY DUVAL, WADE MONROE HUBBARD JR., and REMO BELLUCCI Appeal 2021-001644 Application 15/344,221 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, 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 1–4, 7–11, 14, and 15. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection 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 (Title Page). Appeal 2021-001644 Application 15/344,221 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to absorbent structures useful in absorbent articles.” Spec. 1:3. Apparatus claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An absorbent article comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core comprising an absorbent structure, wherein the absorbent structure comprises a nonwoven fabric and discrete pieces of open cell foam that have been formed about fibers of the nonwoven fabric so as to enrobe them, and the absorbent structure exhibits a Cross Direction bending rigidity between 0.3 gf*cm^2/ cm and 1.6 gf*cm^2/cm and a Machine Direction bending rigidity between 1.5 gf*cm^2/cm and 14 gf*cm^2/cm. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Malmgren et al. (“Malmgren”) US 6,657,101 B1 Dec. 2, 2003 REJECTION Claims 1–4, 7–11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Malmgren. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 9 each recite the limitation of “discrete pieces” of open cell foam. Appellant employs the term “discrete” (with respect to foam) in a particular manner on page 8 of Appellant’s Specification. Regardless, these claims also recite a plurality of such open cell foam members, i.e., “pieces.” On this point, Appellant contends that Malmgren provides no teaching of “discrete pieces of such formed foam.” Appeal Br. 4 (italics added). There is merit to Appellant’s contention on this Appeal 2021-001644 Application 15/344,221 3 point and the Examiner does not direct us to any passage in Malmgren which might negate such contention. See generally Non-Final Act.; Ans. Malmgren discusses “preparing two or more foam layers,” however, “[a]fter foaming . . . but before drying” Malmgren teaches that “the different layers are placed on top of each other, at which the layers will partly integrate with each other and a continuous structure is achieved.” Malmgren 4:11, 15–18. In short, Malmgren teaches “that an integrated structure is obtained.” Malmgren 4:21. Malmgren also discusses “another embodiment” where a “foamed solution is transferred to a mould and polymerization is initiated by supply of heat which results in a solid foam material.” Malmgren 4:45–55 (italics added). As mentioned above, the Examiner does not indicate where Malmgren teaches the employment of multiple “pieces” of foam (in contrast to Malmgren’s “continuous structure,” “integrated structure,” or “solid foam”) as recited. Hence we agree with Appellant that Malmgren fails to teach the limitation directed to “discrete [consistent with Appellant’s usage] pieces” of foam. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–11, 14, 15 103 Malmgren 1–4, 7–11, 14, 15 REVERSED