Ex Parte Eichhorn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

12348413 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017)

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.
12/348,413 01/05/2009 Reinhold Eichhorn Z-8028Q 2996
27752 7590 05/30/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
PRONE, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHOLD EICHHORN, DETLEF GLEICH, PETER JUNK,
CHRISTOF KLEEMANN, MICHAEL ODEMER, THORSTEN POHL,
TOBIAS SCHWARZ, THOMAS VERSTEGE, MARTIN VITT,
JUERGEN WOLF, and CHRISTOPH ZEGULA1
Appeal 2015-004764
Application 12/348,413
Technology Center 3700
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reinhold Eichhom et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 12—14, and
16. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Procter & Gamble
Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004764
Application 12/348,413
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to an oscillatory shaver. Spec. 1:9—
10. Claim 14 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below.
14. A dry shaver comprising a housing; a motor
accommodated within the housing; and a cutter unit comprising
an outer cutter and an associated under cutter, at least one of
which is movable relative to the other in an oscillatory motion,
in which sliding contact is established between the under cutter
and outer cutter along facing contact surfaces; and two springs
biasing the facing contact surfaces into engagement, the two
springs arranged such that throughout the oscillatory motion, the
springs produce a biasing force with a first force component
acting along the oscillatory motion and a second force
component acting perpendicular to the oscillatory motion,
wherein the cutter unit is operably connected to the motor to
establish the oscillatory motion, and further, wherein the outer
cutter is fastened in a frame and each of the two springs has one
end that bears against the under cutter and another end that bears
against the frame, and wherein the frame, biased by an elastic
element, is configured to slide within the housing.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Van Hout US 2002/0011003 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Kazunori2 JP 54-085860 July 7, 1979
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 6, 7, 12—14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Hout and Kazunori.
2 Appellants and the Examiner refer to this reference by its publication
number, JP 54-085860. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 2; Final Act. 4. We refer to
this reference herein as Kazunori.
2
Appeal 2015-004764
Application 12/348,413
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Van Hout discloses most of the elements
required by claim 14, but does not disclose two springs that produce a
biasing force with first and second force components, and that are arranged
as recited. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner finds that Kazunori
discloses such springs, and it would have been obvious to modify Van Hout
to include these as a simple substitution of one known element for another.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Van Hout does not disclose an outer cutter
located within a frame that is biased by an elastic element and configured to
slide within a housing. Appeal Br. 4. Rather, Appellants assert, Van Hout
teaches a shaving head that pivots, and, although the shaving head may be
urged by a spring to pivot toward a center position, it is not configured to
slide toward this position. Id.
In response, the Examiner indicates that the term “slide” in claim 14
simply means to pass smoothly. Ans. 5. The Examiner then states, “a
pivoting movement can be considered a sliding movement. In light of the
definition, the frame 2 clearly slides or passes within the yoke portions of
housing 1 about the axis 3.” Id.
Appellants’ Specification discusses an embodiment of the slidable
frame recited in claim 14, explaining that “[t]he module frame 13 is mounted
on a support element 27 that includes guide pins 28. As becomes apparent
from FIG. 3, it is therefore vertically slidable along the guide pins 28.”
Spec. 5:11—12. As shown in Figures 8 and 9, guide pins 28 make contact
with component 33 in order to guide its movement between upper and lower
3
Appeal 2015-004764
Application 12/348,413
positions.3 The Specification also expressly differentiates between a
pivoting action and a sliding action. See Spec. 5:16—18 (stating, “The
support element 27 is preferably a component part of the pivotal shaving
head housing 5 in order to offer both a retracting and a pivoting option for
maximum adaptation to the contours of the skin to be shaved.”). Thus, in
light of Appellants’ Specification, an element configured simply to pivot
does not equate to an element that is configured to slide as recited in claim
14. Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “slide” as recited
in claim 14 is unreasonable.
This error led to the Examiner’s finding that pivotable frame 2 in
Van Hout satisfies the requirement for a frame, biased by an elastic element,
configured to slide within the housing. Accordingly, we agree with
Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 4) regarding the failure of Van Hout to
disclose the above-noted element recited in claim 14. The Examiner does
not rely on Kazunori in any way that would remedy this deficiency. See
Final Act. 5. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 14 and corresponding dependent claims 6, 7, 12, 13, and 16 as
unpatentable over Van Hout and Kazunori.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6, 7, 12—14, and
16.
REVERSED
3 Appellants’ Specification does not identify component 33.
4