Ex Parte Black et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 1, 2016

13512059 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2016)

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. 13/512,059 05/25/2012 Craig Kortick Black 2009P01748WOUS 9872 24737 7590 11/03/2016 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue APONTE, MIRAYDA ARLENE Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2016 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRAIG KORTICK BLACK, DAINIA EDWARDS, DONALD CHARLES BAUMGARTEN, AHREN KARL JOHNSON, TYLER G. KLOSTER, and WOLTER F. BENNING Appeal 2015-0012121’2 Application 13/512,059 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 25, 2012), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 7, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 29, 2014), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Sept. 9, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-001212 Application 13/512,059 According to Appellants, the invention “relates generally to liquid droplet spray teeth cleaning appliances, and more particularly concerns a guidance assembly for locating the droplet spray for interproximal cleaning of the teeth.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A guidance member for a liquid droplet spray appliance for cleaning teeth, the guidance member positioned at a distal end of a guidance assembly, said guidance assembly defining a longitudinal axis, said guidance member comprising: a base portion for contacting surfaces of adjacent teeth and gum region, between which teeth is an interproximal space, said base portion positioned at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the guidance assembly; and a tip portion which extends forward from a surface of the base portion, the tip portion terminating at an end which is dimensioned and configured to fit into the interproximal space, wherein the tip portion and the base portion are configured so as to provide a reliable, accurate alignment of the tip portion relative to the interproximal space, the tip portion extending forward of the base portion and including an opening through which a liquid droplet spray is directed, wherein due to the position of the base portion, a centerline of the opening of the tip portion, during use of the guidance member, aligns with a plane of the interproximal space. Id. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 10-13, and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kotlarchik (WO 2008/001337 A2, pub. Jan. 3, 2008). 2 Appeal 2015-001212 Application 13/512,059 The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kotlarchik and Boyd (US 2007/0202459 Al, pub. Aug. 30, 2007). The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 5—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kotlarchik. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kotlarchik and Klupt (US 2002/0152565 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2002). See Answer 2—8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is erroneous because Kotlarchik does not teach a guidance member having a tip portion that extends forward from a surface of a base portion, the tip portion terminating at an end which is dimensioned and configured to fit into an interproximal space between adjacent teeth. See Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 3. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellants. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. In response to Appellants’ argument in the Appeal Brief that Kotlarchik does not teach a tip portion dimensioned and configured to fit into an interproximal space between adjacent teeth, the Examiner relies on Kotlarchik’s page 1, lines 15—22, page 4, lines 8—16, and Figure 4A. See Answer 11. However, based on our review, we find that none of these portions of Kotlarchik describes or shows such a tip portion. For example, Kotlarchik’s page 1 discusses “locating the spray on the interproximal spaces between the teeth,” but does not discuss locating a spray tip between 3 Appeal 2015-001212 Application 13/512,059 a user’s teeth. Kotlarchik 1,11. 15—22. Kotlarchik’s page 4 discusses, for example, nozzle 71, but does not discuss that a tip of the nozzle is disposed between a user’s teeth. Kotlarchik 4,11. 8—18. Kotlarchik’s Figure 4A shows the device without showing the mouth of a user, and, thus, does not show a tip disposed between a user’s teeth. Conversely, as argued by Appellants, the arrangement of parts, as described in the cited portion of Kotlarchik’s page 4, may prevent the tip of nozzle 71 from being able to be inserted into a space between a user’s teeth. See Reply Br. 3. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that any reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain any of the anticipation or obviousness rejections of claims 2—17 that depend from claim 1. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1—17. REVERSED 4