Ex Parte Kappes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12206041 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/206,041 09/08/2008 Diana Kappes 06602/Z07781Q 8112
27752 7590 03/02/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SWINNEY, JENNIFER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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 DIANA KAPPES, JOERGE KAISER, ALEXANDER KLOES,
BERNHARD KRAUS, ANDREAS LARSCHEID, and STEFAN REHBEIN
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Diana Kappes et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claim 1 as
unpatentable over Wetzel (US 5,611,145; iss. Mar. 18, 1997), Iwashita (US
7,171,751 B2; iss. Feb. 6, 2007), and Ozawa (US 5,564,191; iss. Oct. 15,
1996). Claims 2—12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a dry shaver.” Spec. 1:10, Figs.
1,2. Claim 1, the sole claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed
subject matter and recites:
1. A dry shaver comprising:
a housing;
a drive motor arranged in the housing;
a driver coupled to the drive motor; and
a shaving head configured to be coupled to the housing by two arms
constructed as extensions of the two narrow sides of the housing, said head
being pivotable about a pivot axis X-X defined by said coupling at said
arms of the housing, the shaving head comprising at least two shaving
systems, each shaving system comprising:
an outer cutter;
an oscillator;
each of said oscillators lying below said pivot axis X-X;
an under cutter coupled to each oscillator and drivable in an
oscillatory linear motion relative to the outer cutter, wherein the
under cutter of the first one of the shaving systems is drivable in a
mutually opposite direction from the under cutter of the second one of
the shaving systems; and
a first arch shaped coupling coupled with a first eccentric portion
and a second arch shaped coupling coupled with a second eccentric
portion, wherein the first eccentric portion lies nearer to the drive motor
relative to the second eccentric portion and connects the under cutter to the
drive motor, and the second eccentric portion lies nearer to the shaving
head relative to the first eccentric portion, said first and second eccentric
portions being on the same drive shaft and turned through an angle of 180°
relative to each other, said first eccentric being longer than said second
eccentric and wherein the second eccentric is in direct contact with a
portion of the first eccentric along the longitudinal axis of the first
eccentric and wherein both the first arch shaped coupling and the second
arch shaped coupling are configured to be coupled to the driver, and
wherein said arch shaped couplings are side-by-side; and wherein each
coupling comprises a groove-shaped slot arranged in a direction transverse
to the pivot axis X-X, and wherein said first and second eccentric portions
are displaceably mounted in said slots, whereby the shaving head can be
2
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
pivoted while the connections between the under cutters and the motor is
maintained.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “neither Wetzel, Iwashita, nor Ozawa teach[]
or suggest[] arch-shaped couplings as claimed.” Br. 4.
Here, the Examiner relies on Wetzel for disclosing “a first arch shaped
coupling (18).” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3, 6. Additionally, the Examiner
finds that “the first and second couplings taught by Iwashita are linear rather
than arched shaped.” Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 5.1 The Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art... to make Wetzel’s new 2nd coupling [an] arched shaped to allow
the head to continue to pivot.” Ans. 6; see also id. at 10; Final Act. 5. The
Examiner’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record and based
on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or conclusions.
Appellants further contend that Wetzel and Ozawa “are silent on the
possibility of using two oscillators and two drives to move the under cutters
in opposite directions” and that neither Wetzel nor Ozawa “teach[] cutters
that reciprocate in opposite directions.” Br. 4, 6.
At the outset, Appellants’ contentions regarding Wetzel and Ozawa
are not persuasive because nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the applied references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800
1 The Examiner correctly points out that “Ozawa was not relied upon to
teach the arch shaped couplings.” Ans. 10; see also id. at 2-8; Final Act.
2-6.
3
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner looks to Iwashita for
disclosure of “two oscillators and two drives to move the under cutters in
opposite directions” and “cutters that reciprocate in opposite directions.”
See Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 4—6. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to provide the dry shaver of Wetzel with the two
tiered coupling, oscillating, and eccentric arrangement of Iwashita to
reciprocate the blades in opposing directions to minimize the distance in
which the driving is transmitted thereby reducing the oscillation amplitude
and improving efficiency.” Final Act. 5, Ans. 5 (both citing Iwashita,
5:5—11); see also Ans. 9—11. The Examiner further looks to Ozawa for
disclosure of “a shaver having a first and second eccentric (38a, 40a), in
which the eccentric closest to the motor is longer than the eccentric closest
to the under cutter.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 7; id. at 8 (the Examiner’s
annotated version of Ozawa’s Figure 2). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious
to modify the size of the eccentrics of Wetzel as taught by
Iwashita and Ozawa to have an eccentric closest to the motor
having being longer than the eccentric closer to the shaving head
which is merely an art recognized equivalent. Altering the length
of the eccentrics does not change the function. The top eccentric
is naturally shorter since it does not require a connection to a
further eccentric.
Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 6. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are
supported by the record and based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions. Nor do
Appellants provide any evidence or argument sufficient to show that the
proposed modifications would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill
in the art. See Ans. 9—10.
4
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
Appellants contend that Iwashita teaches away from Wetzel and the
subject invention. Br. 4—5; see also id. at 6. In particular, Appellants
contend that “Iwashita repeatedly and unequivocally requires the shaver
head to be mounted in a manner that is entirely different from either Wetzel
or the present invention.” Br. 4—5. According to Appellants, “Iwashita
requires the pivotable head to be mounted at the bottom part of the cutter
head . . . rather than near the top, as in the present invention.” Id. at 5.
Appellants conclude that “to mount the Iwashita head in the manner of
Wetzel’s head mount would defeat a key teaching/object of the Iwashita
invention.” Id.2
The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that
[t]he head of Iwashita is not being mounted in the manner of
Wetzel’s. Rather the drive train of Wetzel is being modified by
the drive train teachings provided by Iwashita to drive the cutters
in opposing directions. The modification of the drive train of
Wetzel in view of Iwashita will not alter the pivotal rotation of
the head to Wetzel.
Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 6 (emphasis added) (“the head of Wetzel is
pivoted near a top portion of the housing, rather than a bottom portion.
Iwashita was not relied upon to teach the mounting and pivoting structure of
the head.”); id. at 7. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner engages in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references. Br. 5. We are not persuaded. The
Examiner cites specific teachings in the references themselves, not
Appellants’ disclosure, in support of the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
2 We note that the Examiner is proposing to modify Wetzel with Iwashita
not Iwashita with Wetzel. See Final Act. 2-5; see also Ans. 2-6.
5
Appeal 2015-005248
Application 12/206,041
for combining the references as proposed in the rejection. See Final Act. 2—
6; see also Ans. 2—8, 11.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Wetzel, Iwashita, and
Ozawa.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 as
unpatentable over Wetzel, Iwashita, and Ozawa.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6