Ex Parte Huisinga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 201613315714 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/315,714 12/09/2011 27752 7590 06/28/2016 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global Patent Services - Legal IP Central Building, CS One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthias Huisinga 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Z-8497Q 1017 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VIX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): centraldocket.im @pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com mayer.jk@pg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHIAS HUISINGA, RALF KLUG, WDITH VON DAHLEN, MICHAEL NODERER, STEFAN SINDLINGER, and THOMAS STEINER Appeal2014-006346 Application 13/315, 714 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--10. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party in interest is Braun GmbH of Kronberg, Germany, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio." (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal2014-006346 Application 13/315, 714 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention "relates to a motor-driven epilation head for an epilation device." (Spec., page 1.) Illustrative Claim2 1. An epilation head for an epilation device, in particular for plucking hairs of the human skin, having a rotation cylinder that can be rotated about a rotation axis and comprises a plurality of plucking units for capturing and plucking the hairs, wherein each plucking unit comprise a first clamping element, a second clamping element and a third clamping element, wherein the first clamping element together with the second clamping element forms a first closeable plucking gap and the second clamping element together with the third clamping element forms a second closeable plucking gap, wherein the first and the second clamping element are movably mounted and can be jointly actuated by means of an actuation element in order to close the first and the second plucking gap, wherein the first and the second clamping element move in the same direction, wherein the third clamping element is stationary. Rejections I. The Examiner rejects claim I under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Klaus. 3 (Final Action 3.) II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yehuda.4 (Id. at 2.) III. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yehuda. (Id. at 4.) 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims App.") contained on pages 5-6 of the Appeal Brief. 3 EP 09216744 Bl, published June 12, 2002. 4 WO 2009/056923 A2, published May 7, 2009. 2 Appeal2014-006346 Application 13/315, 714 ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 1 is directed to "[a]n epilation head" wherein "each plucking unit comprise a first clamping element, a second clamping element and a third clamping element." (Claims App.) Independent claim 1 requires the first and the second clamping elements to be "movably mounted" and requires the third clamping element to be "stationary." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Klaus discloses an epilation head wherein each plucking unit comprises first, second, and third clamping elements as required by independent claim 1. (See Final Action 3--4.) More particularly, the Examiner finds Klaus's element 28 is a third stationary clamping element. (Id. at 4 (emphasis added).) The Appellants argue that, in Klaus, "[ e ]lement 28 is not a third stationary element in addition to two moving elements." (Appeal Br. 3.) We are persuaded by this argument because the drawings cited by the Examiner (i.e., Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6) appear to show that Klaus's plucking units each has two (not three) clamping elements, with one being stationary and one being movable. As such, the Examiner does not sufficiently support the finding that Klaus discloses the three clamping elements required by independent claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Klaus. Rejection II As discussed above, independent claim 1 requires the first and second clamping elements to be "moveably mounted" and requires the third clamping element to be "stationary." (See Claims App.) The Examiner 3 Appeal2014-006346 Application 13/315, 714 finds that Yehuda discloses three such clamping elements and specifically states that "the third clamping element 26 is stationary." (Final Action 2.) The Appellants argue that the Examiner "submits that elements 26 of the reference represent the claimed stationary third elements," and "items 26 of the reference are described as the biasing means for the pincers 23." (Appeal Br. 2.) We are persuaded by this argument because Y ehuda' s element 26 is a biasing means, not a clamping element. (See Y ehuda 16.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 4--8, and 10 depending therefrom,5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Y ehuda. Rejection III Claim 9 depends from independent claim 1 (see Claims App.), and the Examiner's further findings with respect to this claim (see Final Action 4) do not compensate for the shortcoming discussed above in our analysis of independent claim 1. Thus; we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yehuda. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--10. REVERSED 5 The Examiner's further findings with respect to dependent claims 2, 4--8, and 10 (see Final Action 2-3) do not compensate for the Examiner's incorrect characterization of Y ehuda' s biasing means 26 as a clamping element. 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation