Ex Parte Van Hal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2012

12089198 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ROBBERT ADRIANUS MARIA VAN HAL,
JASPER ZUIDERVAART, ERIK HOUBOLT, MATHIJS NIEHAUS,
RIEKO VERHAGEN, PAUL ANTON JOSEF ACKERMANS, and
ANTONIUS MAARTEN NUIJS
__________

Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
device for removing hairs from the skin. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12, and 13 are on appeal.
1
Independent claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
1. A device for removing hairs from skin, comprising
an optical device for shortening hairs, that is constructed and
arranged for delivering optical energy, in particular coherent optical
energy, to a hair, such that the hair will be severed from a remaining
hair part, and
a debris removal system, that is constructed and arranged for
removing the severed hair from the skin,
wherein the debris removal system comprises a suction device
constructed to create a pressure lower than ambient pressure on a part
of the skin with severed hair to be removed and a remover part that is
constructed and arranged to mechanically engage the severed hair to
remove the severed hair from the skin and direct the severed hair to
the suction device.
Claims 3, 5-7, 12, and 13 each depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by
Kelman (US 5,606,798, issued Mar. 4, 1997);
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Kelman in view
of Mead, III et al. (US 6,235,015 B1, issued May 22, 2001);
III. Claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Kelman, in
view of Smith (US 5,724,736, issued Mar. 10, 1998).

1
Claims 4, 8-10, 14, and 15 have been withdrawn (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

3
I.
Issue
The Examiner finds that Kelman teaches a device comprising an
optical device for cutting hairs and a debris removal system, i.e., a suction
device (vacuum 24) and a removal part (comb 40), that facilitates removal of
severed hair from the skin (Ans. 3). The Examiner states that comb 40
remains “engaged with severed and un-severed strands of hair simply by
traversing the skin portion” (id.). The Examiner also finds that “Figure 4
illustrates that the comb is positioned immediately beneath the vacuum,
thereby facilitating removal of hair by arranging the hair beneath the device
in order to be removed by the vacuum (24) or by removing the severed hair
directly” (id. at 3-4 (citing Kelman, col. 2, ll. 46-52; see also FF 5 ahead)).
Appellants argue that Kelman‟s device does not include a debris
removal system that comprises a suction device and a remover part that is
“arranged to mechanically engage the severed hair to remove the severed
hair from the skin and direct the severed hair to the suction device,” as
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2-5). Appellants assert that
Kelman does not disclose that “the comb portion 40 is arranged to direct the
severed hair to the suction device” (id. at 4). According to Appellants “as
seen in Fig. 4 of Kelman, the teeth of comb portion 40 are merely
downwardly projecting teeth,” and a “comb with downwardly projecting
teeth would not be able to direct hair anyway, but rather merely forces the
hair it moves through into a specific orientation” (id.). Appellants further
argue that a “comb may be capable of directing hair in a specific direction,
but it is not capable of directing severed hair in a specific direction,” and if
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

4
“a user were to try to direct severed hair in a specific direction, he/she would
injure himself” (id.).
The issue with respect to the anticipation rejection, therefore, is
whether the Examiner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
Kelman discloses a device comprising a debris removal system that
comprises (i) a suction device and (ii) a remover part that is “arranged to
mechanically engage the severed hair to remove the severed hair from the
skin and direct the severed hair to the suction device,” as recited in claim 1.
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification describes a device that comprises an optical device
for removing hairs from the skin, as well as a debris removal system that
comprises a suction device and a hair remover part, such as a brush. The
Specification presents Figure 1, shown below.

Figure 1 diagrammatically depicts a device for severing and removing hair.
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

5
2. As shown in Figure 1, “[s]kin 30 has hairs 32 and remaining hair parts
34,” and “device 1 comprises a housing 10 with a laser source 12 which,
through optical system 14, emits a laser beam 16” (Spec. 6). “A brush 36
with hairs 38 is located in front of a suction housing 40 with a suction duct
42, that is connected to a container 44 filled with severed hairs 46,” and “48
denotes a suction device with an exit opening 50 in the housing” (id.).
3. Kelman describes a “hair cutting apparatus including a housing and
laser apparatus disposed in the housing and arranged to provide a beam of
light impinging on hair to be cut” (Kelman, col. 1, ll. 24-29). In the housing,
a “hair collection apparatus may comprise a vacuum device” (id. at ll. 52-
58).
4. Kelman presents Figure 4, shown below:

Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

6
Figure 4 depicts a sectional illustration of a laser hair cutter (id. at col. 2, ll.
15-17).
5. As shown in Figure 4, “the operative wavelength of the laser source
14 enables hair to be vaporized and carbonized at the location of
impingement of the laser beam 18 thereon … thereby producing a hair
cutting effect” (id. at ll. 39-45). Kelman describes how “white or gray hairs
may be automatically removed by a simple combing action” (id. at ll. 46-
51). “The apparatus for collecting loose hairs preferably comprises
electrically operated vacuum apparatus 24, such as a suction blower …” (id.
at col. 3, ll. 10-14).
6. As also described in Kelman regarding Figure 4, “there is provided a
comb portion 40 which arranges the hairs 42 on a person‟s head, generally in
a plane so that they can be impinged upon a laser beam 18, which may be
focus[]ed thereon by a lens 22” (id. at ll. 25-29).
Analysis
We agree with Appellants that Kelman teaches that comb 40 (shown
in Figure 4) is “used to place hairs in a suitable position for impingement by
the laser beam (18)” (App. Br. 4; FF 6). As found by the Examiner,
however, we find that the comb also functions to remove severed hair from
the skin and direct that hair to the suction device (Ans. 3; FF 4-6). We note
that laser source 12/14 (optical device), vacuum 24 (suction device), and
comb 40 (remover part) as shown in Figure 4 of Kelman (FF 4) are
configured in relation to each other in a manner that is similar to the
placement of the laser optical device 12/14, suction device 48 (attached to
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

7
suction housing 40 and suction duct 42), and brush 36 (remover part) in the
device shown in Figure 1 of the Specification (FF 1).
As also depicted in the figures, Kelman‟s comb 40 and the
Specification‟s brush 36/38 are each arranged so that they direct severed hair
(after hair has been cut by the laser beam) to an intake/duct part connected
to, or part of, a vacuum/suction device (FF 1, 4). Thus, while we agree with
Appellants that a “brush, such as brush 36 disclosed in the specification,
would be the appropriate tool” for the function of directing severed hair in a
specific direction (App. Br. 4), the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that comb 40, as shown in Figure 4 of
Kelman, is similarly appropriate for this function (Ans. 3-4). Appellants
provide no basis, in argument or evidence, for assertions that a “comb with
downwardly projecting teeth would not be able to direct hair” or that “[i]f a
user were to try to direct severed hair in a specific direction” using a comb
(versus a brush), “he/she would injure himself” (App. Br. 4). To the
contrary, Kelman and the Specification indicate that comb 40 and brush
36/38 provide the same function.
With regard to the anticipation rejection, Appellants do not argue
claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 separately (id. at 5). Thus, dependent claims 3, 12,
and 13 fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Conclusion of Law
We conclude that the Examiner establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence that Kelman discloses a device comprising a debris removal system
that comprises (i) a suction device and (ii) a remover part that is “arranged to
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

8
mechanically engage the severed hair to remove the severed hair from the
skin and direct the severed hair to the suction device,” as recited in claim 1.
II.
In relation to the obviousness rejection of claim 2 over Kelman in
view of Mead, Appellants argue that “Mead fails to cure the deficiencies of
Kelman and that Kelman and Mead, taken alone or in combination, fail to
disclose or suggest „a remover part‟,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5). For
the reasons discussed above, Appellants do not persuade us that Kelman
fails to disclose this element.
III.
In relation to the obviousness rejection of claims 5-7 over Kelman in
view of Smith, the Examiner finds that Smith teaches a brush (14) that “is
rotatably mounted at the distal ends of the hair cutting device (10; Abstract;
Column 5, Lines 48-54),” where the “brush is mounted so that its axis of
rotation is parallel to the skin surface when in use (Figures 1 and 3)” (Ans.
5).
Appellants do not dispute this finding, but instead argue that “if one of
ordinary skill in the art were to implement the brush of Smith with the
device of Kelman, he would replace the comb portion (40) of Kelman with
the brush of Smith” (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would not place the brush of Smith on the laser side
of the Kelman device because such a configuration is neither disclosed nor
suggested by Kelman or Smith” (id.).
Appeal 2011-000317
Application 12/089,198

9
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an
ordinary artisan “to include a rotatable brush, in the orientation described,
with the invention of Kelman because the brush would be more effective at
trapping and directed the severed hair towards the vacuum” (Ans. 5). If one
replaced comb 40 of Kelman with the brush of Smith in Kelman‟s device as
asserted by Appellants (App. Br. 6), Smith‟s brush would have similarly
functioned (as comb 40 functioned, as discussed above) to remove severed
hair from the skin and direct that hair to a suction device. As stated by
Appellants “[t]he Examiner [] correctly acknowledges that the comb in
Kelman and the brush in Smith are „functional equivalents‟” (Reply Br. 7).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 as anticipated by
Kelman. We also affirm the obviousness rejections of claim 2 over Kelman
in view of Mead, and claims 5-7 over Kelman in view of Smith.

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

cdc