Ex Parte Moser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

11576376 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte WOLFGANG MOSER,
GERT SAMONIGG, and JOACHIM SCHRETTLINGER
__________

Appeal 2012-001255
Application 11/576,376
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2012-001255
Application 11/576,376

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are drawn to an epilating apparatus, and may be found in
the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 10-12.)
Claims 1, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Sanchez-Martinez
1
as combined
with Conners
2
(Ans. 5). In addition, claims 2-12 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of
Sanchez-Martinez and Conners as further combined with Lee
3
(Ans. 6).
We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellants’ arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. We note as to Appellants’ argument that
the ordinary artisan would not combine Sanchez-Martinez with Connors, as
Sanchez-Martinez used plucking to remove hair, while Conners used laser
ablation (App. Br. 6-7), that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. (Id. at 417.)
As found by the Examiner, and not disputed by Appellants, it is well
known in the art to heat or cool skin prior to or after hair removal (Ans. 5;
see also Spec. 1 (discussing that an epilation device comprising a cooling

1
Sanchez-Martinez, US 6,740,097 B1, issued May 25, 2004.
2
Connors et al., US 6,383,176 B1, issued May 7, 2002.
3
Lee, US 7,037,326 B2, issued May 2, 2006.
Appeal 2012-001255
Application 11/576,376

3
element is known in the art); Sanchez-Martinez, col. 1, ll. 42-44 (disclosing
that “[i]t is known that stimulation devices of the epilators serve to reduce
the user’s subjective sense of pain when plucking body hairs”)). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
thermoelectric device of Connors, which has both a warm part and a cold
part, into the device of Sanchez-Martinez, to further reduce the sensation of
epilation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc