Carla Powell

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021005244 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 16/188,685 11/13/2018 Carla Powell TUP46579 7927 62439 7590 03/01/2022 Sinorica LLC dba Thoughts to Paper 20251 Century Blvd Ste 140 Germantown, MD 20874 EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3772 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): SINORICA@GMAIL.COM pair@sinorica.com sinorica@outlook.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARLA POWELL Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 Technology Center 3700 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, and 6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Carla Powell as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2-4 and 7-13 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 15-17 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a hair roller fashioned with hair- gripping members for twisting the hair tightly into the desired shape. Spec. 1:13-14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A French-twist hair roller for shaping hair into an elegant style comprising: a roller; a plurality of gripping members; a fabric liner; a connecting side; a gripping side; a plurality of weight-saving perforations; an adhesive coating; the roller comprising a first rim, a second rim, a tapered tube, an inner concave surface, and an outer convex surface; the inner concave surface and the outer convex surface being positioned opposite each other about the tapered tube; the plurality of gripping members being positioned onto the outer convex surface; the plurality of gripping members being radially positioned around the roller; the plurality of gripping members being positioned along the roller; the gripping side and the connecting side being positioned opposite each other about the fabric liner; the fabric liner being wrapped around the tapered tube; the plurality of gripping members being laterally connected onto the gripping side, opposite the outer convex surface; the connecting side being positioned coincident to the outer convex surface; the plurality of weight-saving perforations being positioned along the tapered tube; Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 3 the plurality of weight-saving perforations being radially positioned around the tapered tube; the plurality of weight-saving perforations traversing radially inwards through the tapered tube; the adhesive coating being superimposed onto the connecting side of the fabric liner; the adhesive coating being attached coincident to the outer convex surface of the tapered tube; the adhesive coating being only pasted onto a perimeter of the connecting side of the fabric liner and a perimeter of the outer convex surface of the tapered tube so as to reduce an amount of the adhesive coating; the fabric liner comprises a first arcuate side and a second arcuate side; the first rim and the second rim being positioned opposite each other about the tapered tube; an arc-length of the first arcuate side being congruent to a circumference of the first rim; an arc-length of the second arcuate side being congruent to a circumference of the second rim; the first arcuate side being positioned adjacent to the first rim; and the second arcuate side being positioned adjacent to the second rim. Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chamberlin US 3,204,646 Sept. 7, 1965 Shaler US 4,164,951 Aug. 21, 1979 Gregorek US 2010/0252062 A1 Oct. 7, 2010 Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 4 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. II. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 3. III. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gregorek, Chamberlin, and Shaler. Final Act. 4. OPINION Rejection I (Written Description) Claim 1 recites, in part, the adhesive coating being attached coincident to the outer convex surface of the tapered tube; the adhesive coating being only pasted onto a perimeter of the connecting side of the fabric liner and a perimeter of the outer convex surface of the tapered tube so as to reduce an amount of the adhesive coating. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that this language in claim 1 includes two embodiments of Appellant’s invention, one in which adhesive is applied only to the perimeters of the connecting side of fabric and the outer convex surface of the tube, and one in which adhesive is attached coincident to the outer convex surface of a tapered tube. See Final Act. 2-3. According to the Examiner, the Specification describes these embodiments as being distinct from each other and not incorporated together. See id. (citing Spec. 5-6). Thus, the Examiner finds the recitation of the combination of both embodiments in claim 1 constitutes new matter. See id. Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 5 Appellant does not contest this rejection. See Appeal Br. 3-13. Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (2010) (BPAI 2010) (precedential); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We sustain Rejection I because Appellant has made no arguments addressing it. Rejection II (Indefiniteness) The Examiner determines that the two clauses discussed above regarding Rejection I render claim 1 indefinite because they contradict each other. Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, “[i]t is unclear how the adhesive can be . . . attached coincident to the outer convex surface of the tapered tube and only on the perimeter.” Id. Appellant makes no arguments contesting this rejection. See Appeal Br. 3-13. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection II. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075-76. Rejection III (Gregorek, Chamberlin, and Shaler) The Examiner finds that Gregorek discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including a roller (comprising a first rim, a second rim, a tapered tube, an inner concave surface, and an outer convex surface), a plurality of gripping members, a liner, a connecting side, a gripping side, a Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 6 plurality of weight-saving perforations, and an adhesive coating. See Final Act. 4-6. However, the Examiner finds that Gregorek fails to explicitly disclose (i) that its liner (which is described as “flocculant”) is fabric and (ii) that its adhesive coating is applied to the perimeter of the liner and perimeter of the outer convex surface of its tapered tube. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Chamberlin and Shaler, respectively, to remedy these deficiencies. Id. Appellant argues that in Gregorek, “the liner 20 is rectangular and has a first straight side and a second straight side positioned adjacent to the first rim and the second rim respectively.” Appeal Br. 8 (underlining omitted). According to Appellant, “[e]ven if Gregorek . . . discloses that the circular tube may be cone-shaped alternatively, it does not necessarily result in that the liner 20 has two arcuate sides.” Id. (underlining omitted). The Examiner responds that Gregorek discloses the use of cone- shaped rollers in paragraph 53. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner reasons that, when Gregorek’s roller is cone-shaped, its liner would include first and second arcuate sides satisfying the requirements of claim 1. Id. at 3-5. To further explain this reasoning, the Examiner includes certain examples demonstrating how a cone (or truncated cone) is formed from a pattern on material laid flat. See id. at 4-5. We agree with the Examiner that, when Gregorek’s roller is made conical as disclosed in paragraph 53, its liner would be made to continue to fit the roller, which would result in a liner with first and second arcuate sides that are congruent to circumferences of first and second rims of the roller. The examples of conical shapes, and their appearance when laid flat, provided by the Examiner demonstrate the shape of the arcuate sides of each Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 7 end of the flat pattern. See Ans. 4-5. Appellant provides no explanation as to why the Examiner’s finding on this point is in error.3 Appellant next asserts, “[e]ven if the circular tube of Cham[b]erlin (US3204646) is modified to be cone-shaped alternatively, it does not necessarily result in that the liner 20 has two arcuate sides.” Appeal Br. 11 (underlining omitted). This assertion by Appellant does not identify Examiner error because, in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Chamberlin to teach that Gregorek’s liner (which Gregorek describes as being “flocculent”) may be composed of fabric. See Final Act. 6; Gregorek ¶¶ 37, 40, 43, Abstract. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding Chamberlin or the Examiner’s stated reasoning in proposing to modify Gregorek’s liner to be fabric. See Appeal Br. 11; Final Act. 6. Thus, Appellant’s argument regarding Chamberlin and its alleged failure to disclose arcuate sides on its liner does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.4 Finally, Appellant states: The Applicant further submits that the difference between the prior art and this invention is in that: the prior art shapes the hair, and then is removed, so as to style the hair; this invention shapes the hair and remains in the hair so as to keep the shape of this invention for the style; this invention replaces all other 3 Although apparently not relied upon by the Examiner, in describing Figure 3, Appellant’s Specification states, “[a]s is known in the relevant arts, a cone projected onto a flat surface has two curved sides corresponding to the base and the apex of the cone.” Spec. 6:18-19. 4 Appellant also briefly comments on the disclosure of Shaler, describing its disclosure, but without contesting any of the Examiner’s findings of fact or reasoning regarding this reference. See Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 8 method of achieving the French roll look; this invention is for ease and comfort. Appeal Br. 13. This assertion does not contest any of the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding the cited references or the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to the proposed modifications to Gregorek’s roller/liner. Consequently, we are not apprised of Examiner error. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 5 and 6 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4-13. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6 112(a) Written Description 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 103 Gregorek, Chamberlin, Shaler 1, 5, 6 Overall Outcome 1, 5, 6 Appeal 2021-005244 Application 16/188,685 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED