`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/048,380
`
`10/16/2020
`
`Ignatius A. Kadoma
`
`80615US006
`
`9173
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`ZHANG, MICHAEL N
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1781
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/19/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime 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):
`
`LegalUSDocketing @ mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 17/048,380
`Filing Date: 16 Oct 2020
`Appellant(s): 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`
`Bradford B. Wright
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed 2022 July 21.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 17/048,380
`Art Unit: 1781
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Page 3
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 04/01/2022 from which
`
`the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if
`
`any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New grounds of rejection (if
`
`any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION.”
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Appellant argues Wong does not teach the limitation of “particles enmeshed in the
`
`biodegradable polymeric ... fibers.” Appellant argues enmeshed is defined, according to the
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, as “to entangle or catch in or as in in a mesh.” Appellant argues
`
`Wong teaches the filler particles are held within the body fibers and not entangled within the
`
`fibers.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
`
`An applicantis entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption
`
`that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a
`
`definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaningin the
`
`specification at the time offiling. See /n re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In addition, ordinary meaning and intrinsic evidence, such as the claims, the
`
`specification and the prosecution history, are more reliable than extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries and expert testimony, in claim construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303.
`
`Here, Appellant’s Specification recites “[a]s used herein, ‘enmeshed’ refers to particles
`
`that are dispersed and physically held in the fibers of the nonwoven biodegradable layer.” 46
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 17/048,380
`Art Unit: 1781
`
`Page 4
`
`Appellant has operated as their own lexicographer in clearly defining “enmeshed.” The extrinsic
`
`evidence from a dictionary should not narrow or changethe explicit definition provided by the
`
`Specification.
`
`Appellant admits Wong teaches“filler particles being contained within ... the fibers.”
`
`App. Br. 4. Examiner maintains that filler particles being contained within the fibers means the
`
`particles are dispersed and physically held within the fibers, as particles will be physically
`
`bonded and captured by the polymer material forming the fibers. Therefore, Wong teaches
`
`particles that are enmeshed in the biodegradable polymeric fibers, as defined by the instant
`
`Specification.
`
`Appellant does not offer specific arguments regarding the dependentclaims, other than
`
`Wong notteaching the independentclaim. Examiner maintains Wong teaches the independent
`
`claim, as discussed above.
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael Zhang/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
`
`Conferees:
`
`/FRANK J VINEIS/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
`
`/CALLIE E SHOSHO/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
`
`Requirement to pay appeal forwarding fee.
`
`In order to avoid dismissal of the instant appeal in
`
`any application or ex parte reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 41.45 requires paymentof an
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 17/048,380
`Art Unit: 1781
`
`Page 5
`
`appeal forwarding fee within the time permitted by 37 CFR 41.45(a), unless appellant had
`
`timely paid the fee for filing a brief required by 37 CFR 41.20(b) in effect on March 18, 2013.
`
`
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
