Ex Parte Obermann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201611722685 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111722,685 12/05/2008 Wolfgang Obermann 24738 7590 02/26/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PO BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510-8001 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. 2005P00013WOUS 1218 EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOLFGANG OBERMANN Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 1 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Wolfgang Obermann (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 2 (filed May 17, 2013). Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 INVENTION Appellant's invention "relates to a hair-clipping device for shaving or trimming hair." Spec. 1, 1. 1. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A hair clipping device comprising: a stationary cutter member having outer and inner surfaces, a chamber bounded by the inner surface, a plurality of alternating skin-stretching portions and hair-catching openings extending from the outer surface to the inner surface; a movable cutter member comprising a carrier oriented in a longitudinal direction and a plurality of alternating recesses and cutters projecting radially from the carrier and each having a cutting edge, the movable cutter member is positioned in the chamber with a free, close fit; and a drive coupled to the movable cutter member for driving the movable cutter member relative to the stationary cutter member, wherein the carrier and the cutters are solid and loads exerted onto the cutters during use have minimal effect on the dimensions of the cutters in radial directions. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Testi (US 2,253,737, iss. Aug. 26, 1941).2 Although claims 2 and 14 are not cited in the heading of this rejection, because they are discussed in the body of the rejection, we consider this to be a mere typographical error on the part of the Examiner. See Final Act. 2- 3 (mailed Dec. 19, 2012). 2 Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 IL The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Testi and Stevens (US 2005/0223559 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005). III. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Testi and Segal (US 2,119,248, iss. May 31, 1938). IV. The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Testi. V. The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Testi and Gallanis (US 3,894,335, iss. July 15, 1975). ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that Testi teaches "a stationary cutter member (16) having outer and inner surfaces, and a chamber (17) bounded by the inner surface." Final Act 2. The Examiner also finds that Testi teaches "a moveable cutter member (22)," and that "the movable cutter member (22) is positioned in the chamber ( 17) with a free, close fit." Id. In the Answer, the Examiner notes that "the claims have been examined with their 'plain meaning' as set forth in MPEP 2111.01," and that the plain meaning of the term "free" is "'able or capable of moving, not constrained' or in this instance, the moveable cutter member is free to reciprocate/move within and along the chamber." Ans. 10. The Examiner concludes that, "Appellant does not clearly define the recitation [free, close fit], such that when the limitation is used in the claim language, it is understood that no friction- adding pressure is being applied." Id. at 10-11. 3 Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 Appellant argues that because "'[t]he two cutters [of Testi] are pressed upwardly in an equalizing manner and maintained in yielding engagement,'" Testi "teach[ es] against a free, close fit, as recited[]in the claims." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Testi, 2, col. 1, 11. 66-68). Appellant contends that "the plain meaning of the phrase 'positioning ... with a free, close fit', precludes using a leaf spring 25 to press the two cutters upwardly and to maintain the two cutters in yielding engagement with the stationary shear teeth of the implement as described in Testi." Reply Br. 4. Appellant relies on the first paragraph of the Specification which describes that "'the free fit can be so close, that no friction-adding pressure between the elements is necessary to insure clean cutting, which greatly reduces power demand."' Id. at 5 (citing Spec. 1, 11. 11-13). Appellant understands this to mean that "'pressure is not necessary to insure clean cutting."' Id. At the outset, we note that both Appellant and the Examiner propose various definitions for the phrase "free, close fit." Compare Appeal Br. 9 with Ans. 10. It is well established that "claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). In this case, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary and customary meaning of the term "free" is "able or capable of moving, not constrained." See Ans. 10. As such, an ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "free fit" is a fit that allows "movable cutter [7] ... to reciprocate/move within and along the chamber [ 4]" without constraint. See id. It is settled that an artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references 4 Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that because movable cutter 7 can move unconstrained along hole 4, movable cutter 7 and hole 4 form a "clearance fit. "3 Such an interpretation of the phrase "free fit" is consistent with Appellant's Specification which describes cutting member 7 as fitting in hole 4 with a "clearance." Spec. 6, 11. 12-13 (emphasis added). Furthermore, with respect to the term "close," Appellant's Specification states that, "the close fit insures reliable cutting of hairs that are caught between the cutter members 2, 7" and hence, "associated friction added by tightness between the hole 4 and the movable cutting member [7] are also avoided." Spec. 3, 1. 33--4, 1. 3 (emphasis added). As such, in light of Appellant's Specification, we interpret the phrase "free, close fit" to mean a clearance fit that is so dimensioned as to avoid friction between the elements forming the fit, namely, movable cutter member 7 and hole 4, and also to ensure reliable cutting of hair. 4 Accordingly, the limitation of a "movable cutter member is positioned in the chamber with a free, close fit," as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 14, requires a fit with a clearance between the cutting member and the chamber so that no friction occurs, such as by contact, between the cutter member and the chamber. In contrast, as Appellant correctly notes, because Testi teaches that "[t]he two cutters are ... maintained in yielding 3 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "fit" is "the degree of closeness between surfaces in an assembly of parts." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997). 4 For reliable cutting of hair, Appellant's Specification describes "a clearance smaller than 50 µm and more preferably at most about 30 or 40 µm." Spec. 6, 11. 13-14. 5 Appeal2014-000658 Application 11/722,685 engagement with the stationary shear teeth of the implement," (Testi, 2, col. 1, 11. 66-68 (emphasis added), Testi teaches contact and hence, teaches friction between the two cutters and the stationary shear teeth of the implement. See Reply Br. 4. Therefore, Testi fails to teach a "free, close fit," as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 14. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 1and14, and claims 2, 4, and 6-8, depending from claim 1, as anticipated by Testi. Rejections 11-V The Examiner's use of the disclosures of Stevens, Segal, and Gallanis in the various combinations presented by the Examiner, and the Examiner's modification of Testi does not remedy the deficiencies of Testi as discussed supra. See Final Act. 4--7. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 3 as unpatentable over Testi and Stevens; of claim 5 as unpatentable over Testi and Segal; of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Testi; and of claims 11- 13 as unpatentable over Testi and Gallanis. SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation