Ex Parte Simpson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 8, 2015

12462082 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2015)

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. 12/462,082 07/29/2009 Alfred N. Simpson PAB-110C 6724 7590 07/08/2015 Deirdra M Meagher Suite 600 121 State Hwy 31 Flemington, NJ 08822 EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3776 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2015 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 ALFRED N. SIMPSON ____________ Appeal 2012-012120 Application 12/462,082 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before: MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 20–22 and 241. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to artificial nails for both fingers and toes, and especially fingernails wherein the nails have smooth flat top surfaces and are illuminatable or are illuminated. Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 20, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1 Claims 1–19 and 23 are cancelled. App. Br. 4; Ans. 3. Appeal 2012-012120 Application 12/462,082 2 20. An illuminated artificial nail, which comprises: a) a flexible base substrate having a top and a bottom, and having a top view footprint of a shape and size to fit onto at least a portion of a human nail, and having sufficient flexibility to form into, or having a general curvature of, a human nail, said base substrate being attachable to a human fingernail; b) a laminated flat lamp attached to said base substrate; c) a power source connected to said lamp to illuminate it, said power source being selected from the group consisting of a power source located between said base substrate and a top member, and a remotely located power source; d) a top member having a single planar smooth top surface, said top member being selected from the group consisting of a top portion of said lamp, and a cover on top of said lamp and having at least a portion thereof being light transmittable; and, e) an on/off switch connected to said power source and to said lamp. Claims 20–22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rambeau (US 2002/0112734 A1, pub. Aug. 22, 2002) in view of Howell (US 6,168,283 B1, iss. Jan. 2, 2001). We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Rambeau and Howell renders obvious the subject matter of claims 20–22 and 24. App. Br. 4–10. Upon consideration of Appellant’s assertions, with the exception of the “flexible base substrate” recited in independent claim 20, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and rationales, set forth on pages 4–7 of the Examiner’s Answer, as fully responsive to Appellant’s assertions. Accordingly, we adopt them as our own. Appeal 2012-012120 Application 12/462,082 3 With respect to the recited “flexible base substrate,” we note that the Specification discloses the following: “Base substrate may generally be made of any known plastic material that can be adhered to human nails, including, but not limited to natural and synthetic resins, acrylics, polyesters, polyethylenes, polypropylenes, urethanes, etc.” Spec. ¶ 27. The Examiner cites paragraph 25 of Rambeau, which similarly discloses that “nail 80 includes a sealed plastic case 82.” Ans. 7 (citing Rambeau ¶ 25). Accordingly, in that the nail of Rambeau and the claimed “flexible base substrate” are made of the same or similar materials, we are persuaded that Rambeau at least suggests: a flexible base substrate having a top and a bottom, and having a top view footprint of a shape and size to fit onto at least a portion of a human nail, and having sufficient flexibility to form into, or having a general curvature of, a human nail, said base substrate being attachable to a human fingernail; as recited in independent claim 20. See also Ans. 3 (finding Rambeau teaches “having sufficient flexibility to form into or having a general curvature of a human nail (see Figures 1 and 6)”). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20–22 and 24 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) (2011). AFFIRMED hh