Ex Parte Gueret

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2012

11320557 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

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.
11/320,557 12/29/2005 Jean-Louis H. Gueret 08048.0081-00000 9379
22852 7590 01/17/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TUAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3751
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2012 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JEAN-LOUIS H. GUERET
____________________

Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
Patent 6,669,389 B2
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: KEN B. BARRETT, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
17, 19-162, 165-188, 192-200, 203-242. Claim 18 is cancelled. Claims 163,
164, 189-191, 201, and 202 are not subject to any ground of rejection (see
Office Action dated Sep. 27, 2010, at 5-7), and thus are not before us on
appeal.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Independent claims 43 and 204 are illustrative, and are reproduced
below:
43. A device for applying a product, the device comprising: an
applicator element comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the
applicator element is configured to apply a cosmetic product
other than toothpaste, and wherein at least one of the plurality
of fibers comprises a plurality of particles configured to
generate a magnetic field.
204. A mascara product comprising:
a plurality of magnetic fibers.
REJECTIONS2
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 204-242 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as based on a defective oath or
declaration for failure to state an error upon which reissue may be based.

1 The Examiner’s and Appellant’s listing of claims subject to appeal are both
incorrect. Ans. 3; App. Br. 7. The Office Action that is the subject of this
appeal also incorrectly lists the claims subject to appeal. Office Action
dated Sep. 27, 2010, at 1.
2 We altered the order (but not the substance) of rejections from the Answer.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

3
2. Claims 43-71, 78-80, 82, 85-111, 114-124, 165-179, 181, 184, 197-200,
203-213, 215, 216, 219-221 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Nakamatsu3 (JP 11-113638 A; pub. Apr. 27, 1999).
3. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-32, 35-42, 72-77, 83, 84, 125-144, 148-155, 158-
162, 180, 182, 183, 185-188, 195, 196, 222-232, 237, 241 and 242 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gueret (US 4,927,281; iss. May 22,
1990) and Nakamatsu.
4. Claims 81, 145-147, and 192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gueret, Nakamatsu, and Masaaki4 (JP 01-242513; pub. Sep. 27, 1989).
5. Claims 238 and 239 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gueret, Nakamatsu, and Ono5 (JP 07197311 A; pub. Aug. 1, 1995).
6. Claims 9, 33, 34, 112, 113, 156, 157, 193, 194, and 214 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakamatsu and Ono.
ISSUES
This appeal presents the following issues:
Is Appellant’s reissue declaration defective for failing to state an error
correctable under 35 U.S.C. § 251?
Is Nakamatsu’s toothbrush capable of applying a cosmetic product
other than toothpaste as called for in independent claim 43?
Do Nakamatsu’s magnetic particles 9 correspond to coated magnetic
particles as called for in independent claim 70?

3 Refers to English-language machine translation of Jul. 26, 2011.
4 Refers to English-language translation (PTO 11-5242; translated by
Schreiber Translations, Inc.).
5 Refers to English-language machine translation of Jul. 26, 2011.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

4
Does Nakamatsu disclose a magnetic substance deposited on a non-
magnetic medium as called for in independent claim 71?
Does Nakamatsu disclose flocking as called for in independent claims
78 and 165?
Does Nakamatsu disclose a plurality of fibers comprising one of: a
woven fabric, a non-woven fabric, and a felt as called for in independent
claim 80?
Do independent claims 82 and 199 call for the applicator element to
define a longitudinal axis?
Is Nakamatsu’s toothbrush head porous as called for in independent
claim 85?
Is “[a] mascara product,” recited in the preamble of claim 204,
entitled to any patentable weight?
Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of Gueret and Nakamatsu
based upon an adequate rational underpinning?
ANALYSIS
Claims 204-242 under 35 U.S.C. § 251
Appellant’s reissue declaration alleges that US Patent 6,669,389 B2 is
wholly or partially inoperative or invalid because it claims less than
Appellant had a right to claim, in that the original patent does not claim “a
mascara product comprising a plurality of magnetic fibers,” or “a product
comprising at least one of a plurality of fibers having magnetic properties
and a plurality of flakes having magnetic properties.” Reissue Decl. of Mar.
20, 2006, at 2.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

5
The Examiner concluded that Appellant’s reissue declaration is
defective. Specifically, the Examiner found that the subject matter of reissue
claim 204 was encompassed by issued claim 24 or 32 because “a product” in
reissue claim 204 covers “a device” in issued claims 24 or 32. Ans. 4-5. In
other words, the Examiner found that reissue claim 204 is not broader as
alleged by Appellant because the subject matter of reissue claim 204 is
contained within issued claims 24 and 32.
Appellant argues that issued claims 24 and 32 are directed to a make-
up product and an applicator element, while in contrast, independent reissue
claim 204 is directed only to a mascara product. App. Br. 20. Appellant’s
characterization of the claims is correct. Thus, we agree with Appellant that
the original patent claimed less than Appellant’s reissue claim 204.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 204 and dependent
claims 205-242.

Claims 43-71, 78-80, 82, 85-111, 114-124, 165-179, 181, 184, 197-200,
203-213, 215, 216, and 219-221 as anticipated by Nakamatsu
Claims 43-69
Appellant argues claims 43-69 as a group, and we select claim 43 as
representative. App. Br. 21-24; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Independent claim 43 is directed to a device for applying a product
comprising an applicator comprised of a plurality of fibers, at least one of
which is comprised of a plurality of particles configured to generate a
magnetic field. Further, the applicator must be “configured to apply a
cosmetic product other than toothpaste.” Consequently, claim 43 calls for an
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

6
applicator capable of applying a cosmetic product other than toothpaste, and
comprised of a plurality of fibers, at least one of which is comprised of a
plurality of particles configured to generate a magnetic field.6
The Examiner found that Nakamatsu discloses the structure of claim
43, and that Nakamatsu’s toothbrush is capable of applying a cosmetic
product other than toothpaste. Ans. 5, 7-8. This finding is reasonable given
that Nakamatsu discloses an applicator (toothbrush) comprised of a plurality
of fibers (bristles or hair transplantation 3), at least one of which is
comprised of a plurality of particles (magnetic particles 9) configured to
generate a magnetic field. Nakamatsu, paras. [0006], [0009]; fig. 7. This
finding shifted the burden to Appellant to show Nakamatsu’s apparatus is
not capable of such use. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (once the Examiner finds that the prior art structure would be capable
of performing all of the functions claimed, the burden shifts to the applicant
to show that this is not the case).
We cannot find, nor has Appellant identified, a structural distinction
between Nakamatsu’s toothbrush and the subject matter of claim 43. See
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device
does.”); see also In re Schreiber at 1477-78 (holding that a funnel disclosed
for oil dispensing anticipated a claim to a funnel-like structure employed for
dispensing popcorn and that applicant had the burden to prove that the

6 Appellant argues that the relevant question is whether Nakamatsu discloses
an applicator element “configured to apply a cosmetic product other than
toothpaste.” App. Br. 23. This is consistent with our claim construction.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

7
funnel was not capable of dispensing popcorn once the Examiner established
a similarity in structure).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions that Nakamatsu
makes no disclosure of applying a cosmetic product other than toothpaste,
and that Nakamatsu makes no disclosure of a benefit for applying a cosmetic
product other than toothpaste. See App. Br. 23-24. These general assertions
do not provide evidence or a cogent explanation why Nakamatsu’s
toothpaste is incapable of applying a cosmetic product other than toothpaste.
Appellant has failed to carry their burden of establishing that Nakamatsu’s
toothbrush is incapable of applying a cosmetic product other than toothpaste.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 43-69.
Claim 70
Independent claim 70 is directed to a device for applying a product
comprising an applicator element that includes a plurality of fibers, at least
one of which includes a plurality of coated magnetic particles. The
Specification describes that particles 12 may take the form of a magnetic
substance M on a non-magnetic body C, or magnetic cores M with non-
magnetic outer coverings R. Col. 7, ll. 24-30; figs. 317, 32.
The Examiner found that the embodiment of Nakamatsu’s magnetic
powder 9 shown in Figure 7 corresponds to coated magnetic particles as
called for in claim 70. Ans. 8. Nakamatsu discloses that Figure 7 “mixes
and builds the magnetic particles 9 to hair transplantation 3 itself.” Para.

7 If Figure 31 is intended to depict magnetic substance M on non-magnetic
body C, labels M and C appear to be reversed. Spec. col. 7, ll. 24-30.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

8
[0009]; fig. 78. Thus, magnetic particles 9 are deposited on hair
transplantation 3 (the toothbrush bristles); however, Nakamatsu does not
describe or depict magnetic particles 9 as coated. Consequently, we cannot
conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Nakamatsu’s magnetic
particles 9 correspond to coated magnetic particles as called for in claim 70.
See App. Br. 24; contra. Ans. 8. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 70.
Claim 71
Independent claim 71 calls for magnetic particles that include a
magnetic substance deposited on a non-magnetic medium. Appellant argues
that contrary to the Examiner’s finding, “the magnetic powder shown in Fig.
7 is not deposited on the Nakamatsu bristles.” See App. Br. 25; Ans. 8. As
explained in the analysis of claim 70, supra, Nakamatsu discloses a
magnetic substance (magnetic particles 9) deposited on a non-magnetic
medium (hair transplantation 3, or bristles). Nakamatsu, para. [0009]; fig. 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 71.
Claims 78, 79, and 165-179, 181, 184, 197, and 198
Independent claims 78 and 165 call for an applicator element
comprising flocking that includes a plurality of fibers. The Specification
does not provide a definition for flocking. An ordinary meaning of “floc” is
“very short or pulverized fiber (as of wool, cotton, rayon, or silk) obtained
often from the textile processes of shearing or napping, used esp. to form
velvety patterns on cloth or paper or a soft protective covering on metal, and

8 Figure 7 is a side elevation (as opposed to a cross sectional view),
depicting particles 9 on the outer surface of hair transplantation 3.
Nakamatsu, Brief Description of the Drawings.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

9
applied by blowing or shaking on a surface spread with adhesive.”9
Consistent with this definition, the Specification describes the surface of
foam element 234 as coated on the surface with flocking 235 (depicted as
very short fibers). Col. 12, ll. 13-16; fig. 25. Consequently, claims 78 and
165 call for an applicator element comprised of a plurality of very short or
pulverized fiber.
Nakamatsu does not explicitly disclose that hair transplantation part 1
(the toothbrush head) or pipe shaped hollow hair 10 (the toothbrush bristles)
are comprised of flocking. Further, neither hair transplantation part 1 nor
pipe shaped hollow hair 10 are comprised of very short or pulverized fiber.
Para. [0006], [0009]; figs. 7, 8. Consequently, we cannot conclude by a
preponderance of the evidence that Nakamatsu discloses flocking as called
for in claims 78 and 165. See App. Br. 25-26, 30; contra Ans. 8.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 78 or
165 or dependent claims 79, 166-179, 181, 184, 197, and 198.
Claim 80
Independent claim 80 calls for an applicator element that includes a
plurality of fibers comprising one of: a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric,
and a felt. Appellant argues, and we agree, that Nakamatsu does not
disclose a plurality of fibers comprising one of: a woven fabric, a non-
woven fabric, and a felt. See App. Br. 26; contra Ans. 8.
Nakamatsu discloses an embodiment of the toothbrush having a sheet
of polyester coated with a thin sheet-shaped magnet 6 attached by pressure-
sensitive bond 7 to the side of the toothbrush head (core hair portion 1)

9 “Floc,” n., def. 3, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1989).
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

10
opposite the bristles (hair transplantation 3). Nakamatsu, para. [0008]; figs.
5, 6. Thus, Nakamatsu’s plurality of fibers (hair transplantation 3) is not
comprised of a woven fabric (sheet of polyester) as in claim 80; rather, the
woven fabric (sheet of polyester) is a separate portion of the toothbrush.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 80.
Claim 82, 199, 200, and 203
Independent claims 82 and 19910 call for the applicator element to
define an axis and the plurality of bristles to extend in substantially the same
direction as the axis of the applicator element. The Specification describes
an embodiment of device 110 that includes an applicator 112 having a stem
113 at one end, and a paintbrush 115 at the other end, but does not define or
describe the axes of applicator 112. See col. 10, ll. 52-59; fig. 13; see also
App. Br. 13, 15 (citing col. 10, l. 52 - col. 11, l. 6; fig. 13, col. 7, ll. 18-23).
While the bristles of paintbrush 15 extend in substantially the same direction
as the longitudinal axis of applicator 112, claims 82 and 199 do not recite “a
longitudinal axis,” but rather more broadly refer to “the axis,” which could
refer to any axis reasonably defined by applicator 112. Because the
language of claims 82 and 199 is broader than this embodiment in the
Specification, we decline to read “the axis” as “the longitudinal axis.” See
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. . . . [A]

10 Appellant argues claims 199, 200, and 203 as a group, and we select claim
199 as representative. App. Br. 21-24; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

11
particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”).
The Examiner found, and we agree, that the transverse axis of
Nakamatsu’s toothbrush (parallel to arrows marking l2) extends in the same
direction as the axis of the bristles (hair transplantation 3). Ans. 8;
Nakamatsu, figs. 1, 3. Appellant argues that claims 82 and 199 call for the
longitudinal axis of the applicator element to extend perpendicular to the
axis of the bristles, and the longitudinal axis of Nakamatsu’s toothbrush
(handle 8) extends perpendicular to the bristles (hair transplantation 3).
App. Br. 27-28, 30-31. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is
not commensurate in scope with claims 82 and 199. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 82, 199, and dependent claims 200, and 203.
Claim 85-111 and 114-118
Claim 85 recites, “an applicator element comprising a porous
member.” The Specification does not provide a definition of “porous.” An
ordinary definition of “porous” is “full of pores, capable of absorbing
moisture, permeable by liquids.”11 We find nothing in the Specification
inconsistent with this ordinary meaning. Consequently, claim 85 calls for an
applicator element that includes a member full of pores, capable of
absorbing moisture, or permeable by liquids.
The Examiner found that Nakamatsu’s toothbrush head (core hair
portion 1) is porous as called for in claim 85 because it contains holes
around the bristles (hair transplantation 3). Ans. 8. Nakamatsu discloses
that the toothbrush head (core hair portion 1) includes holes containing the

11 “Porous,” adj., def. 1a., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1989).
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

12
bristles (hair transplantation 3). Nakamatsu, para. [0006]; figs. 1, 2.
However, Nakamatsu does not disclose the composition of the toothbrush
head (core hair portion 1), and does not disclose that the toothbrush head
(core hair portion 1) is full of pores, capable of absorbing moisture, or
permeable by liquids. Thus, we cannot conclude by a preponderance of the
evidence that Nakamatsu’s toothbrush head (core hair portion 1) is porous as
called for in claim 85. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim
85 or its dependent claims 86-111 and 114-118.
Claim 119-124
Claim 119 calls for at least one of the application members to be
configured to apply a make-up product.12 Appellant repeats that argument
that a toothbrush is not configured to apply a make-up product. App. Br. 29.
Our analysis of claim 43, supra, is equally applicable here, and we sustain
the rejection of claims 119-124 for similar reasons.
Claim 204-213, 215, 216, and 219-221
The Examiner’s determination that Nakamatsu’s magnetic fibers
(magnetic particles 9) anticipate the subject matter of claim 204 is based on
the claim construction that “a mascara product” as recited in the preamble is
not entitled to any patentable weight. Ans. 9.
Claim 204 recites, “[a] mascara product comprising: a plurality of
magnetic fibers.” The Specification describes a product P (e.g., mascara)
which may contain magnetized particles or fibers. Col. 10, ll. 40-47. The
subject matter of claim 204 is not all magnetic particles; rather, claim 204
covers magnetic particles that are part of a mascara product. Therefore, the

12 Appellant argues claims 119-124 as a group, and we select independent
claim 119 as representative. App. Br. 29; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

13
preamble serves to further define the structure of the article claimed. See
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 204 and dependent claims 205-213, 215, 216,
219-221.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-32, 35-42, 72-77, 83,
84, 125-144, 148-155, 158-162, 180, 182, 183, 185-188, 195, 196, 222-232,
237, 241 and 242 over Gueret and Nakamatsu; claims 81, 145-147, and 192
over Gueret, Nakamatsu, and Masaaki; and claims 238 and 239 over
Gueret, Nakamatsu, and Ono
Independent claims 1, 72, 74, 76, 83, 84, and 125 each call for an
applicator element comprised of a plurality of fibers, at least one of the
plurality of fibers having at least one particle configured to generate a
magnetic field. Each of these rejections is based, at least in part, on the
combination of Gueret and Nakamatsu. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious to embed magnetic field generating fibers in
Gueret’s bristle, as taught by Nakamatsu, in order to allow the bristles to
promote blood circulation in parts of the body other than teeth. Id.
Gueret discloses a mascara brush, but does not disclose magnetic
particles. Gueret, passim. Nakamatsu discloses a toothbrush intended to
promote circulation in the gums of the user to prevent pyorrhea and gum
inflammation; however, Nakamatsu does not disclose or otherwise suggest
that the toothbrush could promote increased circulation in other parts of the
body, such as where mascara may be applied. Nakamatsu, paras. [0001],
[0003], [0012]. Likewise, the Examiner does not explain why, in view of
Nakamatsu’s teaching, a person of ordinary skill in the art could predictably
extend Nakamatsu’s teaching to other parts of the body. Thus, we agree
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

14
with Appellant that the proposed combination lacks a rational underpinning.
See App. Br. 35. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent
claims 1, 72, 74, 76, 83, 84, and 125, and their dependent claims 2-8, 10-17,
19-32, 35-42, 73, 75, 77, 81, 126-155, and 158-162.
Regarding claims 180, 182, 183, 185-188, 192, 195, and 196, which
depend from claim 165, Appellant repeats the arguments used against the
rejection of claim 165 as anticipated by Nakamatsu. App. Br. 37-38. For
the reasons explained in the analysis of claim 165, supra, we cannot sustain
the rejection of these claims.
Regarding claims 222-232, 237-239, 241, and 242, which depend
from independent claim 204, Appellant repeats the arguments used against
the rejection of claim 204 as anticipated by Nakamatsu. App. Br. 37-38, 40.
For the reasons explained in the analysis of claim 204, supra, we cannot
sustain the rejection of these claims.

Claims 9, 33, 34, 112, 113, 156, 157, 193, 194, and 214 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakamatsu and Ono
Claims 9, 33, 34, 156, and 157
The Examiner found that Nakamatsu discloses the limitations of
claims 9, 33, 34, 156, and 157, except the specific quantify of magnetic
particles. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner concluded that, in view of Ono, such
quantities would have been an obvious matter of optimization for a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 6.
Appellant asks that we apply the arguments used against the rejection
of claims 1 and 125 as unpatentable over Gueret and Nakamatsu, to the
rejection of claims 9, 33, 34, 156, and 157 (which depend from claims 1 and
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

15
125) as unpatentable over Nakamatsu and Ono. App. Br. 38. For the
rejection of claims 1 and 125, Appellant argued that the Examiner failed to
articulate an adequate rationale to combine Gueret and Nakamatsu. App. Br.
33-37. The rejection of claims 9, 33, 34, 156, and 157 does not rely upon
the rationale used for the rejection of claims 1 and 125. Consequently, the
argument asserted against the rejection of claims 1 and 125 fails to respond
to the rejection articulated by the Examiner for the rejection of claims 9, 33,
34, 156, and 157. Because Appellant sets forth no other argument for these
claims, we are constrained to affirm the rejection of claims 9, 33, 34, 156,
and 157. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (the BPAI “reviews the obviousness rejection[s] for error based
upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon,” and treats arguments not made as waived).
Claims 112, 113, 193, 194, and 214
Claims 112, 113, 193, 194, and 214 depend from independent claims
85, 165, and 204. The rejection of dependent claims 112, 113, 193, 194, and
214 relies in part on the same findings regarding Nakamatsu used for the
independent claims, and thus suffers from the same shortcoming as the
rejection of the independent claims, discussed supra. See App. Br. 38.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant’s reissue declaration is not defective for failing to state an
error correctable under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

16
Nakamatsu’s toothbrush is capable of applying a cosmetic product
other than toothpaste as called for in independent claim 43.
Nakamatsu’s magnetic particles 9 do not correspond to coated
magnetic particles as called for in independent claim 70.
Nakamatsu discloses a magnetic substance deposited on a non-
magnetic medium as called for in independent claim 71.
Nakamatsu does not disclose flocking as called for in independent
claims 78 and 165.
Nakamatsu does not disclose a plurality of fibers comprising one of: a
woven fabric, a non-woven fabric, and a felt as called for in independent
claim 80.
Independent claims 82 and 199 do not call for the applicator element
to define a longitudinal axis.
Nakamatsu’s toothbrush head is not porous as called for in claim 85.
“A mascara product,” recited in the preamble of claim 204, is entitled
to patentable weight.
The Examiner’s proposed combination of Gueret and Nakamatsu is
not based upon an adequate rational underpinning.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 204-242 under
35 U.S.C. § 251.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 43-69, 71, 82,
119-124, 199, 200, and 203 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2012-000191
Application 11/320,557
US Patent 6,669,389 B2

17
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 70, 78-80, 85-
111, 114-118, 165-179, 181, 184, 197, 198, 204-213, 215, 216, 219-221
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-
32, 35-42, 72-77, 81, 83, 84, 125-155, 158-162, 180, 182, 183, 185-188,
192, 195, 196, 222-232, 237-239, 241 and 242 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 33, 34, 156, and
157 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 112, 113, 193,
194, and 214 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

nlk