Ex Parte Werner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201312164825 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte EDWIN A. WERNER and MATTHEW K. ANDIS __________ Appeal 2012-001532 Application 12/164,825 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a hair grooming tool. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-7, 11-16, and 18-20 are on appeal (Supp. App. Br. 4). 1 Claims 1, 13, and 18 are each independent and are set forth in the Claims 1 Claims 8-10 and 17 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration (Supp. App. Br. 4). Appeal 2012-001532 Application 12/164,825 2 Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 15-18). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A hair grooming tool comprising: a housing defining a cavity, the housing including a grooming end and a handle end that define a longitudinal axis of the housing; a vibratory motor assembly positioned within the cavity and configured to vibrate the housing; and a pet-engaging member coupled to the housing at the grooming end, the pet-engaging member having a planar surface and teeth defined along an edge thereof, the planar surface and the edge positioned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the housing; wherein vibration of the housing enables constant motion of the hair tool and movement of the pet-engaging member as the pet-engaging member is pulled through hair to remove loose hair without cutting the hair. Claims 1-4, 6, 11-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Komatsu et al. (US 3,853,133, Dec. 10, 1974) (Ans. 4). Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Komatsu in view of McKay (US 2008/0052850 A1, Mar. 6, 2008) (Ans. 8). Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Komatsu in view of Hwang (US 6,722,374 B2, Apr. 20, 2004) (Ans. 8). ANTICIPATION Appellants argue that Komatsu fails to teach a pet-engaging member having a planar surface with teeth defined along an edge of the surface, and being positioned such that the edge and the planar surface are transverse to the longitudinal axis/dimension of a housing, the longitudinal axis of the housing being defined by a grooming end and a handle end of the housing. (App. Br. 9.) We agree. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection for the reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Appeal 2012-001532 Application 12/164,825 3 OBVIOUSNESS In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner additionally relies on McKay for teaching a battery (Ans. 8). In rejecting claims 7 and 20, the Examiner additionally relies on Hwang for teaching a protector (id.). However, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to overcome the deficiency in Komatsu discussed above. We therefore also reverse the obviousness rejections. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation