UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT 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.
`
`10/660,694
`
`09/12/2003
`
`Robert C. Hochtritt
`
`1517-1034
`
`7665
`
`01/28/2008
`
`466
`7590
`YOUNG & THOMPSON
`745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
`2ND FLOOR
`ARLINGTON, VA 22202
`
`EXAMINER
`
`THOMAS, ALEXANDER S
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1794
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01128/2008
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`CASCADES
`EX1031
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`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.
`
`10/660,694
`
`09/12/2003
`
`Robert C. Hochtritt
`
`1517-1034
`
`7665
`
`01/28/2008
`
`466
`7590
`YOUNG & THOMPSON
`745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
`2ND FLOOR
`ARLINGTON, VA 22202
`
`EXAMINER
`
`THOMAS, ALEXANDER S
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1794
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01128/2008
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`CASCADES
`EX1031
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte ROBERT C. HOCHTRITT and ANDREW M. CONGER
`
`Appeal2008-0759
`Application 10/660,694
`Technology Center 1700
`
`Decided: January 28, 2008
`
`Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. P AK, and
`CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Appeal2008-0759
`Application 10/660,694
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`This is an appeal from the final rejection claims 1-20, all the claims
`
`pending in the present application. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. A stack of interfolded absorbent sheet products, comprising a
`plurality of single ply absorbent sheets each of which is itself folded at least
`twice about axes that are perpendicular to one another, the absorbent sheets
`moreover comprising an embossed surface relief of a predetermined pattern
`or design, wherein each of said absorbent sheets within said stack comprises
`at least one pair of panels sandwiched between a pair of adjacent panels of
`another of said absorbent sheets within said stack.
`
`The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
`
`obviousness:
`
`Freiburger
`Heath
`Lloyd (EP '382)
`Pigneul (EP '538)
`
`5,516,000
`6,699,360 B2
`EP 320,382
`EP 286,538
`
`May 14, 1996
`Mar. 2, 2004
`Feb. 8, 1989
`Jan.2, 1992
`
`Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a stack of interfolded
`
`absorbent sheet products, comprising a plurality of single ply absorbent
`
`sheets having an embossed surface relief pattern or design. The sheets are
`
`folded at least twice about axes that are perpendicular to one another, and
`
`each of the sheets within the stack comprises at least one pair of panels
`
`sandwiched between a pair of adjacent panels of another absorbent sheet.
`
`Appealed claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over either EP '382, EP '538 or Freiburger in view of Heath.
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`Appeal2008-0759
`Application 10/660,694
`
`With the exception of claims 18-20, Appellants do not set forth a
`
`substantive argument that is reasonably specific to any particular claim on
`
`appeal. Accordingly, claims 1-17 stand or fall together.
`
`We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
`
`patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
`
`that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one on ordinary
`
`skill in the art within the meaning in § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
`
`Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
`
`reasons expressed in the Answer.
`
`There is no dispute that each of the EP'382, EP'538 and Freiburger,
`
`like Appellants, discloses a stack of interfolded absorbent sheet products
`
`comprising a plurality of absorbent sheets each of which is itself folded at
`
`least twice about axes that are perpendicular to one another and wherein
`
`each of the absorbent sheets within the stack comprises at least one pair of
`
`panels sandwiched between a pair of adjacent panels of another absorbent
`
`sheet within the stack. As appreciated by the Examiner, the absorbent sheets
`
`of the three references are not single ply, nor are they embossed with a relief
`
`design. However, Heath, like the three primary references, describes
`
`absorbent sheets for use as facial tissue, bathroom tissue and napkins, etc.
`
`that comprise a single ply that is imparted with an embossed relief design.
`
`As explained by the Examiner, the processed one-sheet ply absorbent sheet
`
`of Heath is taught to be an improvement over one-ply facial tissue and
`
`napkins that suffer the problems of poor imprintability and softness.
`
`Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`Appeal2008-0759
`Application 10/660,694
`
`for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the one-ply absorbent sheet of
`
`Heath in making the folded absorbent products of the primary references for
`
`the purpose of reducing cost while improving printability and softness.
`
`Neither of the primary references nor Heath is restricted to any particular
`
`type of absorbent products but provide a general teaching regarding products
`
`comprising absorbent sheet material. While Appellants make the argument
`
`that Heath is primarily directed to bathroom tissue, Heath clearly discloses
`
`that the single-ply embossed sheets can be used for making facial tissue and
`
`napkins as well (see col.2, ll. 28 et seq.). Appellants also make the argument
`
`that Heath "makes clear the tissue of Heath is of a serpentine (e.g. rolled)
`
`configuration" (p. 2 of Reply Br., first para.). However, the term serpentine
`
`is not equivalent to the term rolled and it would seem that serpentine is more
`
`suggestive of a back and forth folding configuration than a roll.
`
`As for separately argued claims 18-20, which recite that the dispenser
`
`comprises a downwardly-directed opening through which the absorbent
`
`sheets may be withdrawn one at a time, we find that it would have been a
`
`matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the
`
`dispenser in either an upwardly-directed or downwardly-directed manner for
`
`dispensing the sheets. Manifestly, a conventional box of facial tissues which
`
`ordinarily dispenses tissues in upward direction may be affixed to the
`
`bottom of a substrate in an upside down fashion to dispense the tissues in a
`
`downward direction.
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`Appeal2008-0759
`Application 10/660,694
`
`As a final point, we note that the Appellants base no argument upon
`
`objective evidence ofnonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
`
`would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the
`
`Examiner, the Examiners decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.P.R.§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`tc
`
`YOUNG & THOMPSON
`745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
`2ND FLOOR
`ARLINGTON, VA 22202
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
