Ex Parte Van Hal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2015

11914154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111914,154 11112/2007 Robbert Adrianus Van Hal
24738 7590 12/17/2015
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.
PH000578US 1 3874
EXAMINER
CRANDALL, LYNSEY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3769
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 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 ROBBERT ADRIANUS VAN HAL, RIEKO VERHAGEN,
GUIDO ROOSEN, and MICHIEL ERRIT ROERSMA
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robbert Adrianus Van Hal et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal with disputed limitations
italicized for emphasis.
1. A hair-growth control device, comprising:
a laser beam source for providing a laser beam with a
pulse time,
a laser beam guiding means,
a control unit for automatically determining a target
position and focus depth for the laser beam,
wherein the control unit is arranged to determine as the
target position a position within a predetermined distance from
hair-growth related skin tissue, which is situated between 0.3
and 5 mm below the surface of a skin to be treated when the
device is in an operative position on the skin, and
an optical focusing system for focusing the laser beam to
a focal spot with a power density, wherein the power density in
the focal spot is above a local threshold value of the
corresponding tissue for inducing a laser induced optical
breakdown phenomenon in skin tissue.
THE REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1, 2, and 4--12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zavislan (US 5,653,706; iss. Aug. 5, 1997) and Cense (US
2002/0173782 Al; pub. Nov. 21, 2002).
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Loeb (US 5,984,915; iss. Nov. 16, 1999) and Cense.
2 In the event of continued prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether
claim 8, which depends from independent claim 1, is indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because there is no antecedent basis for the
claim term "the image sensor." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Notably, the
claim term "an image sensor" is recited in dependent claim 4.
2
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Loeb, Cense, and Harte (US 3,693,623; iss. Sept. 26, 1972).
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zavislan, Cense, and Harte.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12- Obviousness over Zavislan and Cense
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that although Zavislan teaches "a
control unit for determining a target position ... for the laser beam," and "a
control unit that controls the depth within the tissue of the focused laser
beam," for example, "at a depth of 3 mm," Zavislan "is silent with regard[]
to automatically determining a target position and focus depth for the laser
beam." Final Act. 4--5 (citing Zavislan, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 11-21, col. 5, 11.
8-15, col. 6, 1. 64, Fig. 1) (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that
"Cense discloses a hair removal device that includes a control unit and
image sensor that automatically determines the target position, i.e. hair root,
for the laser beam." Id. at 5 (Cense, citing i-fi-12, 27). The Examiner also
finds that "the target position automatically determined by the
controller/image system of Cense inherently includes a focus depth, as the
root of the hair lies at a specific depth below the skin surface." Id.
(emphasis added). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious
"to include the controller/image sensor taught by Cense in the device taught
by Zavislan in order to create a device that is particularly suitable for non-
professional users that targets and destroys the root of a hair as taught by
Cense." Id. (citing Cense, i-fi-12, 27).
3
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by "equat[ing] [the]
determination of the position of a hair root as disclosed in Cense [with the]
determination of a focus depth for the laser beam." Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br.
3. Appellants submit that "Cense [does not] disclose that the laser should be
focused at a specific location or depth to sufficiently destroy a hair root (i.e.
above, below, or directly at the hair root)" and that Cense "appears [to have]
a set focus depth." Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner finds that
Cense discloses that the laser beam is positioned "in a series of
target positions that correspond to the positions of the hair
roots" ... and "the target position corresponds to a position of a
hair root in the skin and is established by the control unit from
an image of the skin."
Ans. 13 (citing, Cense i-f 2). The Examiner further relies on Letki3 for
"specifically teach[ing] that a processor, i.e. control unit, determines ...
target positions (9, 9' and 9' ') which occur at various depths under the skin
surface" ... and thus, "the control unit also determines the focus depth of
the laser beam." Ans. 13 (citing Lefki, p. 12, 1. 30 top. 13, 1. 25).
Cense discloses that "[ t ]he control unit successively sends the laser
beam manipulator to all target positions established from the image, the laser
source being activated, in each target position, by the control unit so as to
generate a laser pulse." Cense i-f 2. More specifically, Cense discloses that
control unit 37 comprises a processor by means of which, on
the basis of the image recorded, the positions of the hair roots
39 of the hairs 41 present on said part of the skin 7 are
determined on said part of the skin 7. The control unit 37
controls the two actuators 23 and 25 by means of [electrical
3 WO 00/62700; pub. Oct. 26, 2000.
4
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
signals] so as to generate a laser pulse having a predetermined
pulse dose.
Id. at i-f 27. Cense further discloses that
[b ]y means of a first actuator 23 and a second actuator 25, the
tilting mirrors 17 and 19, respectively, can be tilted about,
respectively, a first tilt axis 27, which extends in the plane of
the first tilting mirror 17 and is directed substantially parallel to
the second skin contact element 21, and a second tilt axis 29,
which extends in the plane of the second tilting mirror 19 and
intersects the first tilt axis 27 substantially perpendicularly. By
tiling the two tilting mirrors 17 and 19, the target position 16 of
the laser beam 13 can be displaced over the skin 7 in a direction
parallel to an X-direction and a Y-direction extending
perpendicularly thereto, both directions being parallel to the
skin contact element 21.
Id. at i-f 26, Fig. 1. We understand from Zavislan that locating the laser beam
at a selected site (e.g., a target position), for example, by a two mirror
steering system, is distinct from determining parameters of the device, such
as laser pov,rer, duration of the laser pulses, and depth ivithin the tissue of the
focused spot. See Zavislan, col. 5, 11. 10-15, col. 6, 11. 25-31. For example,
Zavislan discloses that the mechanisms for controlling the depth below the
surface at which the laser beam is focused (e.g., focus mechanism 69 that
moves lens 68) are different from the mechanisms for controlling the
position of the laser beam on the surface of the skin (e.g., two steering
mirrors 54, 56). See id. at col. 6, 11. 37-39.
Thus, although Cense discloses a control unit for automatically
determining a target position of the laser beam on the skin, we are persuaded
by Appellants that Cense falls short of disclosing that Cense' s control unit
automatically determines a focus depth for the laser beam, as required by
independent claim 1 and 9. In particular, the Examiner has not supported the
5
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
finding that "the target position automatically determined by the [Cense's
control unit] inherently includes a focus depth, as the root of the hair lies at a
specific depth below the skin surface." Final Act. 5.
The disclosure in Lefki suffers from the same deficiency as the
disclosure of Cense, in that Lefki discloses determining the presence of hair
below the skin and positioning the laser beam at target positions on the skin
corresponding to such locations, namely, 9, 9', 9", but does not disclose a
control unit that automatically determines the focus depth for the laser beam,
as required by independent claims 1 and 9. See Lefki, p. 12, 1. 30 top. 13, 1.
25.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9, and claims 2, 4--8, and 10-12 depending
therefrom.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 12- Obviousness over Loeb and Cense
The Examiner relies on the same position with respect to Cense for
the rejection claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loeb
and Cense, as discussed supra. For the reasons discussed supra, we also do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, and
claims 3, 11, and 12 depending therefrom.
Claims 13-16- Obviousness over Loeb or Zavislan, and Cense and Harte
Claims 13-16 depend from independent claim 9. The Examiner's
reliance on Harte does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner's findings
with respect to claim 9, as discussed supra. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13-16.
6
Appeal2013-003604
Application 11/914, 154
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.
R1::ynRs1::-1-) __ C..i r ... __ ~-C..i
tkl
7