Ex Parte LAUDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311938255 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/938,255 11/10/2007 Tung Yan LAU 19568 3528 7590 09/26/2013 SPECIALIFE INDUSTRIES LIMITED RM 908, BLK 49, HENG FA CHUEN CHAI WAN, HONG KONG EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TUNG YAN LAU ____________ Appeal 2011-011709 Application 11/938,255 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-3. App. Br. 4. Claims 4-6 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1-3 pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appeal 2011-011709 Application 11/938,255 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below: 1. A curved and toothed cutting blade for a trimmer for trimming hair comprising a base body having at least a connecting member for mounting onto a trimmer and a longitudinal cutting edge on one side which is symmetrically concave downward and has evenly distributed teeth, wherein the curve of the cutting edge is in the form of a segment of the interior of a circular arc of a lens with the two interior angles of any teeth not having different degrees of angle and the dent in between any two teeth being not perpendicular to the base pitch of the tips of the two teeth and slanted towards the center point of the curve of the cutting edge, and all the dents have upper portions which are identical in shape, size and orientation as any other dents, and all the teeth have upper portions which are identical in shape, size and orientation as any other teeth. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Crane (US 1,929,838; iss. Oct. 10, 1933). Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fogle (US 4,203,214; iss. May 20, 1980). ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 as anticipated by Crane Appellant argues claims 1-3 as a group. App. Br. 8. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2 and 3 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues that Crane does not disclose “the dent in between any two teeth being not perpendicular to the base pitch of the tips of the two teeth and slanted towards the center point of the curve of the cutting edge” because “[a]s illustrated in Fig. 2 in Crane, the dents on App App the l curv findi dent to th of er slant edge dent of th illus eal 2011-0 lication 11 eft hand si e of the cu These ar ngs that C s slanted to e base pitc ror in the E ed toward as shown in betwee e curve of trated thes Figure 4 Figure 2 We susta 11709 /938,255 de of the b tting edge guments d rane disclo the left, a h of the te xaminer’ s a right si in Figure n any two the cutting e findings of Crane . in the reje lade in fac in Figure o not pers ses a curv s shown i eth. Ans. s findings de of the c 4 below an teeth being edge” as on Figure is a detail ction of c 3 t slant tow 2 of Crane uade us of ed or tooth n Figure 4 6. Nor do that Crane enter poin d thus sat not . . . s recited in 4 of Crane of the lowe laims 1-3 a ards the c .” App. B error in th ed cutting , and thus these argu discloses t of the cu isfy the lim lanted tow claim 1. I , which is r side of t s anticipa enter poin r. 8. e Examin blade wh are not per ments per that all the rve of the itation th ards the ce d. The Ex reproduce he blade o ted by Cra t of the er’s ere all the pendicula suade us dents are cutting at “the nter point aminer d below. f ne. r App App Clai claim App two and Fogl 14.” illus poin towa that are “ Nor Fogl the c cutti eal 2011-0 lication 11 ms 1-3 as Appellan 1 as repr ellant argu teeth are n slanted tow e teaches t App. Br. trates dent t of the cur rds the cen These ar Fogle teac not perpen do these ar e’s dents a utting edg ng edge as Figure 1 of the cu 11709 /938,255 anticipated t argues c esentative es that Fog ot perpend ards the c hat “all ed 9 (citing li s on the le ve of the c ter point guments a hes that th dicular to guments p re slanted e and are n illustrated is a side v tting mean by Fogle laims 1-3 . Claims 2 le does no icular to th enter poin ges 60 and nes 51 to 5 ft hand sid utting edg of the curv re not pers e dents are the base p ersuade u towards a ot slanted in Figure iew of a k s. 4 as a group and 3 stan t disclose e base pit t of the cu points 56 3). Appe e of the bl e so that a e” as claim uasive of slanted to itch of the s of error i right side towards a s 1 and 2 r nife. Figu . App. Br d or fall w that the d ch of the t rve of the point bac llant also a ade slantin ll of the d ed. Id. error in th the left in tips of the n the Exam of a cente center po eproduced re 2 is an . 8-9. We ith claim ent in betw ips of the cutting ed k toward t rgues that g towards ents “are n e Examine Figure 2 two teeth iner’s fin r point of a int of the c below. A enlarged v select 1. een any two teeth ge because he handle Figure 1 the center ot slanted r’s finding and thus .” Ans. 8 dings that curve of urve of th ns. 8-9. iew . e Appeal 2011-011709 Application 11/938,255 5 We sustain the rejection of claims 1-2 as anticipated by Fogle. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We also reject claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Appellant and the Examiner construe the limitation “the dent in between any two teeth being not perpendicular to the base pitch of the tips of the two teeth and slanted towards the center point of the curve of the cutting edge” to mean that the dent is not perpendicular to the base pitch of the tips and not slanted towards the center point of the curve of the cutting edge. This interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which discloses that the dents are not slanted relative to the curve of the cutting edge but instead extended relatively straight as shown in Figures 3 and 4, so that the grinding wheel 2 with discs can form the teeth in the grooves 21 between the discs of the grinding wheel as shown in Figure 6. See Spec. 4- 5, paras. [0022-0023]. However, the plain language of claim 1 is susceptible to being interpreted to mean that the dent is not perpendicular to the base pitch of the tips and is slanted relative to the curve of the curve of the cutting edge. As such, claim 1 is indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-3 as anticipated by Crane and Fogle. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Appeal 2011-011709 Application 11/938,255 6 This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner.… (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.… No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation