Ex Parte Gueret

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2010

10377629 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEAN-LOUIS H. GUERET
____________

Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided:1 January 14, 2010
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and
RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal by the Patent Applicant from the
Patent Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24-28,
34-38, 40-47, 49-59, 61-69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80-84, 96-103, 105-115, 118-
126, 128, 129, 131-136, 139-143, 145-151, 153-181, and 218-220. The

1 Heard December 9, 2009.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

2
Board’s jurisdiction for this appeal is under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134. We
affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are to devices for combing and applying makeup to
eyelashes or eyebrows. Claims 1-38, 40-94, 96-143, and 145-220 are
pending in this application, with claims 3, 4, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 29-33, 48,
60, 70, 73, 75, 76, 79, 85-89, 104, 116, 117, 127, 130, 137, 138, 152, and
182-217 withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 5). Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15,
16, 18, 21, 22, 24-28, 34-38, 40-47, 49-59, 61-69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80-84,
90-94, 96-103, 105-115, 118-126, 128, 129, 131-136, 139-143, 145-151,
153-181, and 218-220 are rejected. Of these rejected claims, claims 1, 58,
114, and 162 are independent.
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
1. Claims 162-164, 168-174, and 176-181 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Montgomery (US 3,921,650, issued Nov. 25, 1975) (Ans.
3);
2. Claim 165 and 175 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious in view of
Montgomery (Ans. 4);
3. Claims 166 and 167 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Montgomery and Taylor (US 4,565,205, issued Jan. 21, 1986) (Ans. 5).
4. Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 34-38, 40-47, 49-
59, 61-69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 90-94, 96-103, 105-115, 118-126,
128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 136, 139-143, 145-151, 153-161, and 218-2202

2 Claims 218-220 were not included in the Examiner’s statement of the
grounds of rejection, but these claims are pending and the Examiner referred
to them in the discussion of the rejection on page 9 of the Answer.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shaw (US 1,921,328 issued Sept.
12, 1932) and Montgomery (Ans. 5-6); and
5. Claims 22, 26, 78, 82, 132, and 135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Shaw, Montgomery, and Taylor (Ans. 9).
Claims 1, 162, 165, 166, 173, and 175 are representative and read as
follows:
1. A device for combing eyelashes and/or eyebrows, and/or for applying
makeup to eyelashes and/or eyebrows, the device comprising:
a support, wherein the support lacks a core defined by two twisted-
together branches;
at least one row of projecting elements extending along an axis, the
row comprising
at least a first group of the projecting elements, wherein the first
group comprises at least three consecutive projecting elements spaced from
one another such that projecting elements of each consecutive pair of the
at least three consecutive projecting elements are spaced from one another
by a substantially constant mutual spacing, and
a fourth projecting element outside the first group,
wherein the fourth projecting element is spaced apart from the
first group by a gap extending along the axis of the row over a distance
greater than said substantially constant mutual spacing; and
makeup to be applied to the eyelashes and/or the eyebrows.

162. A device for applying makeup to the eyelashes and/or the eyebrows,
the device comprising
a support comprising at least one face; and
at least one row of projecting elements extending from the at least one
face of the support,
wherein the projecting elements disposed in a single row define gaps
configured to permit a plurality of eyelashes and/or eyebrows to pass
through the gaps so as to coat the eyelashes and/or eyebrows in makeup and
form bunches of eyelashes and/or eyebrows that are not separated.

165. The device of claim 162, wherein the spacing between two
adjacent projecting elements is at least 2.5 mm.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

4
166. The device of claim 162, further comprising a succession of
groups each comprising at least two projecting elements, wherein the
projecting elements are aligned in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis
of the support, the spacing between two consecutive groups being greater
than the spacing between adjacent projecting elements within a group.

173. A method of making up eyelashes and/or eyebrows, the method
comprising:
providing the device of claim 162;
applying makeup to eyelashes and/or eyebrows; and
combing the eyelashes and/or the eyebrows using the device, so as to
form groups of non-separated eyelashes and/or eyebrows.

175. The method of claim 173, wherein the makeup is applied using an
applicator differing from the device.

1. ANTICIPATION BY MONTGOMERY
Claims 162-164, 168-174, and 176-181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Montgomery (Ans. 3).

Statement of issue
Claim 162 is to a “device for applying makeup to the eyelashes and/or
the eyebrows.” The device has at least one row of projecting elements,
where the projecting elements define gaps “configured to permit a plurality
of eyelashes and/or eyebrows to pass through the gaps” to coat lashes or
brows with makeup and “form bunches of eyelashes and/or eyebrows that
are not separated.”
The Examiner contends that Montgomery describes an applicator
device having a mascara brush and comb, where the comb coats the lashes
or brows with makeup and forms bunches of eyelashes or eyebrows as
required by claim 162.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

5
Appellant contends that Montgomery does not disclose the claimed
configuration and explicitly teaches that it is undesirable to form bunches of
non-separated eyelashes. Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not
met the burden of establishing that Montgomery’s device would inherently
have the structure required by claim 1.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Montgomery describes a device comprising:
projecting elements disposed in a single row define gaps
configured to permit a plurality of eyelashes and/or eyebrows to
pass through the gaps so as to coat the eyelashes and/or
eyebrows in makeup and form bunches of eyelashes and/or
eyebrows that are not separated.
(Claim 162.)
Principles of Law
“Anticipation is a question of fact, including whether or not an
element is inherent in the prior art.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190
F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “To anticipate a claim, a prior art
reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently.” Id.
“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to
show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well
settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).
“Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively,
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

6
the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s
inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). “Where, as here,
the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or
are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can
require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or
inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” Id. Thus, once
“the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant
and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that
they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Findings of Facts
Montgomery
1. Montgomery describes an applicator for applying cosmetics, such as
mascara to eyelashes, where the applicator has a rod portion, and a comb and
brush at the rod’s end portion (Montgomery, Abstract; see Fig. 1, “70” is the
“comb”).
2. The device comprises a container filled with liquid mascara and an
applicator having comb and brush portions immersed in the liquid mascara
(Montgomery, col. 3, ll. 53-61).
3. As the applicator is withdrawn from the container, mascara is wiped from
the comb and brush portions by the container’s conical walls (Montgomery,
col. 3, l. 57 to col. 4, l. 14).
4. As part of the wiping operation, the “tapered sides . . . of the comb teeth
have a considerable amount of mascara removed therefrom but the mascara
remains between the teeth.” (Montgomery, at col. 4, ll. 14-17).
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

7
5. “[T]he mascara is applied to the lashes by combing it thereon, rotating
the comb teeth through the lashes. After this has been accomplished, if an
excess amount of mascara has been applied, or some of the lashes stick
together, or whether neither of the latter conditions exist, the substantially
dry brush portions may be used to fluff, curl and arrange the lashes leaving
the proper amount of mascara thereon and in condition and appearance
desired.” (Montgomery, at col. 4, ll. 29-38.)
6. Montgomery does not describe the spacing between the comb teeth.
7. Montgomery teaches that, in the prior art, separate devices had been used
to properly apply mascara, using one device to apply the mascara to the eye
and the other device to remove excess mascara and to fluff and curl the
eyelashes (Montgomery, at col. 1, ll. 8-11).
Analysis
The issue in this rejection is whether Montgomery describes an
applicator for coating eyelashes and eyebrows with mascara comprising
“projecting elements” spaced apart by gaps, where the gaps are “configured
to permit a plurality of eyelashes and/or eyebrows to pass through the gaps
so as to coat the eyelashes and/or eyebrows in makeup and form bunches of
eyelashes and/or eyebrows that are not separated.” The Examiner found that
Montgomery’s mascara comb met the claimed limitation because, when
applying mascara to lashes by “rotating the comb teeth through the lashes”,
Montgomery disclosed that “some of the lashes stick together” (FF5; Ans.
3). Because stuck together lashes would form an eyelash “bunch” as
required by claim 162 (Ans. 3), the Examiner had sound basis for believing
that Montgomery’s comb had gaps configured as in the claim.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

8
Appellant contends that Montgomery does not describe the claimed
configuration and that therefore the Examiner’s conclusion must be based on
inherency (App. Br. 14). Quoting from case law, Appellant argues that, to
establish inherency, the evidence must make it clear that the “‘missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present’” in the reference (id.). According
to Appellant, Montgomery “considers lashes sticking together to be a
problematic occurrence” and does not disclose that “the occurrence of lashes
sticking together results from a plurality of lashes passing through the gaps
between the teeth of the comb” (id. at 13). “[T]he problem could be caused
by some other factor, e.g., applying too much mascara.” (Id.)
The PTO does not have the facilities to manufacture products. For
this reason, once the Examiner has shown “sound basis” for believing that a
claimed feature is described in the prior art, the burden is shifted to the
applicant to prove that it is not. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255; In re Spada,
911 F.2d 708. Here, Montgomery describes a comb with projecting
elements, as does claim 162, and states “some of the lashes stick together” as
one alternative “condition” that occurs when the comb is applied to the
eyelashes with mascara between its teeth (FF4-5). Because the eyelashes
“bunch” together as they do with the makeup device of claim 162, the
Examiner had sound basis to believe that the eyelash “bunching” was
produced by gaps between the projecting teeth – the structure recited in
claim 162 which accomplishes this function.
Appellant did not prove that the “gap” limitation was absent from
Montgomery’s comb. Rather, Appellant argued that the lash bunching could
occur by another factor, such as from applying too much mascara (App. Br.
14). However, this speculation is not backed by any fact or proof. To the
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

9
contrary, Montgomery mentions an “excess amount of mascara” and “some
of the lashes stick together” as alternative and separate conditions that occur
when rotating the comb teeth through the lashes (FF5).
Montgomery discloses that lash bunching is one of several alternative
conditions that occur when the comb is rotated through the lashes (FF5). In
Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005), a
claim to a method of preventing sunburn damage by topically applying a
composition to exposed skin was held to be anticipated by a disclosure of a
topical skin cream “[b]ecause all skin surfaces are susceptible to sunburn
damage.” Anticipation was based the skin’s susceptibility to sunburn, not the
requirement that, each time the prior art topical cream was applied to
exposed skin, sunburn was actually prevented. Likewise, we do not find it
necessary that bunching together occurred each time the comb was used. It
is enough that lashes are susceptible to bunching together when combed with
the device, and that bunching occurs in certain cases.
The rejection of claim 162 is affirmed.

2. OBVIOUSNESS OVER MONTGOMERY
Claim 165 and 175 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
in view of Montgomery (Ans. 4).

Statement of the issues
1. Claim 165 is to the device of claim 162, where “the spacing between two
adjacent projecting elements is at least 2.5 mm.” The Examiner contends:
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to construct the
spacing between two adjacent projecting elements being at least
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

10
2.5mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere
change in the size of the known component. A change in size is
generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill
in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
(Ans. 4.). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding the change
in size obvious.
2. Claim 175 is to a method of applying make-up using the device of claim
162, “wherein the makeup is applied using an applicator differing from the
device.” The Examiner contends that it would have been routine, as a matter
of design choice, to choose any desired applicator to apply makeup (Ans. 4).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that a choice of
another applicator would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled worker.

Principles of Law
As a general principle, a “teaching away” from a claimed invention
must be considered when making an obviousness determination. In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, simply because a
product is described as “inferior” in some respects does not by itself
constitute a teaching away from using the “inferior” product. Id. A teaching
that a result would be inferior or less desirable is not a teaching away unless
the use “would render the result inoperable.” In re ICON Health and Fitness
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Level of ordinary skill in the art
8. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to construct
the mascara brush and comb as described by Montgomery. As Montgomery
does not describe the precise dimensions of its comb and brush, nor the
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

11
spacing between the comb teeth, persons of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that the choice of dimensions and spacing would have been
routine for the skilled worker.
Analysis
Claim 165
Appellant contends that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Montgomery “teaches away from anything other than very
narrow spacing between teeth of a comb” and would have had no reason to
“render” Montgomery’s device with 2.5 mm spaces as claimed (App. Br.
17).
Montgomery’s failure to describe the dimensions of its comb or the
comb teeth spacing indicates that persons of ordinary skill routinely made
dimension choices when constructing an eyelash mascara applicator (FF8).
Appellant has not introduced any evidence to the contrary.
Appellant asserts that Montgomery only teaches narrow spacing, but
has not identified any passage in Montgomery where this teaching can be
found. Furthermore, Appellant has not provided evidence that the claimed
2.5 mm spacing would have been unconventional in an applicator of the type
disclosed in Montgomery, nor that the 2.5 mm spacing would not have been
reached by routinely optimizing the gaps between the comb teeth. For these
reasons, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the claim would have been obvious to
persons of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection of claim 165 is affirmed.
Claim 175
Montgomery describes prior art mascara applicators which came in
two separate devices, one device for applying the mascara and the other
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

12
device for fluffing the eyelash (FF7). While using a prior art brush with
Montgomery’s mascara container may have been inferior to the improved
configuration taught by Montgomery, simply because a product is “inferior”
in some respects does not by itself constitute a teaching away from using the
“inferior” product. Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. A teaching that a result would
be inferior or less desirable is not a teaching away unless the use “would
render the result inoperable.” In re ICON, 496 F.3d at 1381. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Montgomery teaches
away from using another applicator (App. Br. 18). The rejection of claim
175 is affirmed.

3. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF MONTGOMERY AND TAYLOR
Claims 166 and 167 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Montgomery and Taylor (Ans. 5).
Statement of the issue
The Examiner contends that Taylor describes a device for applying
makeup that comprises “projecting elements [that] are aligned in a direction
parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support, the spacing between two
consecutive groups being greater than the spacing between adjacent
projecting elements within a group” as recited in claim 166. Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred in determining that Taylor teaches
consecutive groups with the claimed spacing limitation.

Principles of law
During patent examination proceedings, claim terms are given “the
broadest reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

13
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the
specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow
that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.” Sjolund
v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[L]imitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Findings of Fact
Taylor
9. Taylor describes a mascara applicator.
10. Taylor’s Fig. 7, reproduced below, shows a top plan view of a mascara
brush (Taylor, at col. 4, ll. 13-14).

Fig. 7 shows a brush with “two rows of elongated tines 46, 46’ integrally
extend[ing] from the flat top surface 42” (Taylor, at col. 5, ll. 63-65).

Comparison between claim 166 and the prior art
11. Claim 166 is to a device for applying makeup as in claim 162, and
further comprising “a succession of groups each comprising at least two
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

14
projecting elements, wherein the projecting elements are aligned in a
direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support.”
12. Claim 166 recites that the “spacing between two consecutive groups [is]
greater than the spacing between adjacent projecting elements within a
group.”
13. The Examiner finds that Montgomery does not describe the claimed
spacing (Ans. 5).
14. However, the Examiner finds (Ans. 5) that Taylor’s Fig. 7 shows a
mascara applicator with a “succession of groups”, represented by the rows of
tines 46 and 46’, respectively.
15. Each group (“row” as in Taylor) has “at least two projecting elements.”
16. The rows follow one another and are therefore “consecutive” as required
by the claim.
17. As shown in Fig. 7, the spacing between the rows (tine row 46 and time
row 46’) is greater than the spacing between the tines in a single row as
required by claim 166.

Reason to combine
18. The Examiner finds that it “would have been obvious to one having an
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the
succession [of] groups as taught by Taylor into the device of Montgomery in
order to provide an effective way in making up.” (Ans. 5.)

Analysis
Appellant contends that the rows described in Taylor are not
“consecutive groups” as that term “is used in the present application.” (App.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

15
Br. 19.) Pointing to Specification Figures 36-39 and accompanying
disclosure, Appellant argues that the “specification of Appellant’s
application uses the term ‘consecutive’ to mean axially spaced in succession
. . . Taylor does not disclose or suggest such axially spaced (i.e.,
‘consecutive’) groups, but rather, as shown in cited Fig. 7, teaches groups
that are parallel to one another.” (Id.)
Claim 166 recites that the groups of projecting elements are
“consecutive.” It does not recite that the groups of elements are arranged in
the same row (i.e., “axially spaced”) or whether the groups are consecutive,
but parallel to one another. Rather, the claim reads on both configurations.
Appellant identifies certain embodiments in the Specification in which the
groups of projecting elements are in the same row (App. Br. 19; Figs 36-39),
however, Appellant does not identify any language in claim 166 which
requires such an interpretation. Absent express limitations in the claim, we
decline to interpret “consecutive” more narrowly that the claim language
dictates. It is not proper to import limitations from the specification into the
claims. The rejection of claim 166 is affirmed.

4., 5. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN VIEW OF SHAW AND
MONTGOMERY
Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 34-38, 40-47, 49-59,
61-69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 90-94, 96-103, 105-115, 118-126, 128,
129, 131, 133, 134, 136, 139-143, 145-151, 153-161, and 218-220 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shaw and Montgomery
(Ans. 5-6).
Claims 22, 26, 78, 82, 132, and 135 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

16
§ 103(a) as obvious over Shaw, Montgomery, and Taylor (Ans. 9).
Analysis
All these claims require a device for combing eyelashes and/or
eyebrows, and makeup to be applied to the eyelashes and/or eyebrows. The
Examiner contends that Shaw describes a comb with same structure as the
device recited in the claims, but does not describe it combined with makeup
(Ans. 6). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to employ the comb
of Shaw for combing the eyelashes since as shown by
Montgomery, it is known in the art to use a comb as a device
for combing the eyelashes and applying make up.
(Id.)
Appellant contends that there would have been no reason to have
combined Shaw and Montgomery because “each . . . is directed to
fundamentally different subject matter.” (App. Br. 20). “In particular, Shaw
is directed to a comb for parting hair on a scalp, whereas Montgomery is
directed to an applicator for applying makeup to eyelashes.” (Id.) “One of
ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reason to modify the scalp-
parting comb of Shaw to include any feature relating to the eyelash
applicator of Montgomery.” (Id. at 20-21.)
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case,
we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that persons of ordinary skill in
the art would not have logically combined Shaw’s comb for parting hair
with Montgomery’s mascara makeup for eyelashes. The Examiner did not
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

17
provide evidence that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Shaw’s comb could be used to apply makeup as taught by
Montgomery. We are therefore compelled to reverse the rejections.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW & SUMMARY
1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Montgomery describes a
device comprising projecting elements with gaps “configured to permit a
plurality of eyelashes and/or eyebrows to pass through” to “form bunches of
eyelashes and/or eyebrows that are not separated” as recited in claim 162.
The rejection of claim 162 is affirmed. Claims 163, 164, 168-174, and 176-
181 fall with claim 162 because separate reasons for their patentability were
not provided. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2. The Examiner did not err in finding the size limitation recited in
claim 165 obvious. The Examiner did not err in finding that the use of a
separate makeup applicator, as recited in claim 175, would have been
obvious to the ordinary skilled worker. The rejection of claims 165 and 175
is affirmed.
3. The Examiner did not err in finding that Taylor teaches
consecutive groups of projecting elements with the claimed spacing
limitation as recited in claim 166. The rejection of claim 166 is affirmed.
Claim 167 falls with claim 166 because separate reasons for its patentability
were not provided. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4., 5. The Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Shaw and
Montgomery. The obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15, 16, 18,
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34-38, 40-47, 49-59, 61-69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80,
Appeal 2009-005188
Application 10/377,629

18
81, 82, 83, 84, 90-94, 96-103, 105-115, 118-126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133,
134, 135, 136, 139-143, 145-151, 153-161, and 218-220 are reversed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

dm

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413