Ex Parte Haaf

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 2016

12958965 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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. 12/958,965 12/02/2010 David Haaf 545.237 4146 85444 7590 04/13/2016 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC 2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L San Rafael, CA 94901 EXAMINER HAYES, KRISTEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/13/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID HAAF ____________________ Appeal 2014-002935 Application 12/958,965 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David Haaf (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zoroufy (US 5,351,646, iss. Oct. 4, 1994) and Fortson (US 2007/0295281 A1, pub. Dec. 27, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a cat grooming device. Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2014-002935 Application 12/958,965 2 5. A cat grooming device comprising a cylinder having a shell, said shell having open ends, an exterior surface and interior surface, said interior surface having a lining capable of grooming a cat passing within said cylinder, said lining comprising directional microfibers. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that “Zoroufy discloses a cat grooming device comprising a cylinder having a shell with open ends, and interior and exterior surfaces, with the interior surface having a lining (36, 76).” Final Act. 2. The Examiner determines that Zoroufy fails to disclose a “lining comprising directional microfibers.” Id. The Examiner further finds that “Fortson teaches a pet grooming device comprising directional microfibers.” Id. (citing Fortson ¶ 15). Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to make “the lining (36) of Zoroufy to be microfiber as to increase the comfort of using the animal using the device.” Id. The Examiner further determines that “[g]iven the device, the method is inherently performed.” Id. Noting that in Fortson the micro-fibers are “intended to be used as a towel or as an active element that a user would grasp and rub against the coat of a dog” and that “there is no teaching of microfibers being employed as fur and dander loosening and capture material,” Appellant argues that “[n]o one would combine Fortson with Zoroufy for any purpose unless being guided to do so by applicant’s disclosure.” Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1–2. The Examiner responds to this argument by explaining that the proposed rejection substitutes Fortson’s microfiber for the cotton fabric liner 36 of Zoroufy, and does not replace Zoroufy’s rubberized protuberances 76, Appeal 2014-002935 Application 12/958,965 3 which act to groom the cat. See Ans. 3; see also Zoroufy 9:52–59 (describing first cotton material 36 having rubberized protuberances 76 on its surface, such that the rubbing of cat’s fur against the protuberances 76 permits loose fur to stick to the surface of first material 36). Thus, in the proposed rejection the microfiber by itself is not relied upon to meet the limitation requiring that the lining be capable of grooming a cat. See Appeal Br. 5. Rather, the modified lining still has a plurality of rubberized protuberances, and remains capable of grooming a cat.1 Moreover, the Examiner’s finding that the use of microfiber would “increase the comfort of using the animal using the device” is supported by Fortson (Final Act. 2) which states: Primarily, the towel 11 is meant to provide the pet owner 13 the ability to dry his or her pet 12 after a water activity, such as taking a bath or swimming in a lake, pool, river or the ocean. Additionally, the towel 11 can be placed on the ground, on the floor, in a car, at a park, etc. wherein the owner 13 can offer the animal 12 a comfortable and inviting sitting or laying space. The towel 11 is composed of typical towel materials, such as cotton, chamois or other micro-fiber. Fortson ¶ 39. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that there is no reason for replacing Zoroufy’s cotton fabric with Fortson’s microfiber is unconvincing. See Appeal Br. 3. Appellant further argues that Zoroufy fails to disclose a cylinder “having open ends” or a method “which employs a device that is structured such that a cat is urged to enter the shell of the device at one of its open ends 1 We note that claims 5 and 12 do not preclude a lining including multiple components. See Appeal Br. 5–6. Appeal 2014-002935 Application 12/958,965 4 and exit the device at the other of the open ends.” Appeal Br. 4 (pointing to the pet carrier embodiment disclosed in Zoroufy); see also Reply Br. 1. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that Appellant “is referring to an embodiment of the device not used by the examiner to reject the claims.” Ans. 4. The Examiner is correct. As shown, for example, in Figures 1‒9, Zoroufy discloses a “cat furniture device” 20 having a housing 22 in the form of a cylinder having two open ends 44. In describing Figures 2, 3A, 4A, and 5, the Specification discloses that housing 22 has “at least one housing open end 44.” See Zoroufy 5:64–67. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 12. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 12 is AFFIRMED. 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