Ex Parte Gross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11771491 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JEFFERY D. GROSS, YIU KWONG WAN, and
THOMAS C. MADDOCKS
____________________
Appeal 2011-000417
Application 11/771,491
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-23. Br. 10. The Examiner has withdrawn the
rejections of claims 5-7, 13-16, and 19-22 but objected to these claims as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-000417
Application 11/771,491
2
The claims are directed to a hand-held hair dryer with a light source.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hand-held hair dryer comprising:
a housing having a main portion and a nozzle
portion terminating at a drying end,
an interior of the housing defining a cavity and
an air flow path,
the air flow path extending through the
cavity to the drying end of the nozzle portion,
an exterior of the housing defining a handle
portion and a shoulder,
the shoulder positioned between the nozzle
portion and the main portion on the exterior of the
housing; and
a light source coupled to the housing and
positioned on the shoulder outside the cavity and outside
the air flow path,
wherein the light source is positioned to direct
light in a path along the exterior of the housing from the
shoulder towards a work area proximate the drying end
of the nozzle portion, such that the light path is separate
from the air flow path.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Jancke
Wells
US 1,787,251
US 4,135,080
Dec. 30, 1930
Jan. 16, 1979
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wells. Ans. 3-4.
Appeal 2011-000417
Application 11/771,491
3
2. Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells and Jancke. Ans. 4-5.
OPINION
Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 10, and 18 by Wells
Wells discloses a heat gun. (See, e.g., Wells, col. 3, ll. 47-56). The
sustainability of the Examiner’s rejection under § 102(b) turns on whether
the recitation of “hand-held hair dryer” in the preamble of independent
claims 1, 10, and 18 limits the scope of those claims. Appellants contend
that the claims are limited solely to “‘hand-held hair dryer[s]’” such that the
claims do not read on Wells’s heat gun. Br. 14-16. In particular, Appellants
argue that the recitation of “a work area proximate the drying end of the
nozzle portion” in claim 1 and of “a work area adjacent to the drying end of
the nozzle portion” in claims 10 and 18 indicates an intent to limit the
structures of claims 1, 10, and 18 to “hand-held hair dryers.” Appellants
likewise point to frequent references in the Specification to hair dryers as
evidence that the preambles of claims 1, 10, and 18 are limiting. (See Br.
14-16).
Appellants have provided detailed arguments explaining why they
believe the entire preamble recitation “hand-held hair dryer” patentably
limits claims 1, 10, and 18. Although the Examiner summarizes the
applicable law on page 13 of the Answer, the Examiner does not explain
why the particular preambles of claims 1, 10, and 18 are not limiting.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive.
Wells’s heat gun anticipates the subject matter of independent claims
1, 10, and 18 only if it inherently is a “hand-held hair dryer” as recited in the
preambles of claims 1, 10, and 18. Appellants contend that heat guns, such
Appeal 2011-000417
Application 11/771,491
4
as the one described in Wells, produce temperatures that are far too high to
permit use as a hair dryer. Br. 16. We note that Wells describes a heat gun
that produces sufficiently high temperatures to shrink plastic and heat metal
parts on an assembly line. Wells, col. 3, ll. 47-51. Wells’s heat gun also “is
somewhat larger and provides greater volume of air at a slightly higher
temperature than previous units.” Id., col. 3, ll. 51-54 (emphasis added).
Taking into account the express warnings not to use heat guns as hair dryers
which appear in several of the instruction manuals placed in evidence by
Appellants, the Examiner has not demonstrated a sound basis for belief that
Wells’s heat gun is inherently capable of functioning as a hair dryer.
When we properly interpret claims 1, 10, and 18, we must reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims as anticipated by Wells. For the same
reasons, we also reverse the rejection of dependent claim 2.
Obviousness of claims
3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 23 over Wells and Jancke
Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 depend either directly or indirectly upon
independent claim 1. Claims 11, 12, 16, and 17 depend either directly or
indirectly upon independent claim 10. Appellants argue for reversing the
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 23 for the same
reasons justifying reversing the rejection of their respective independent
base claims 1, 10, and 18. Br. 22-23. For the reasons expressed above, we
reverse the rejections of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. For the same
reasons, we reverse the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16,
17, and 23.
Appeal 2011-000417
Application 11/771,491
5
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-4,
8-12, 16-18, and 23.
REVERSED

hh