YACHIYO INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2020001169 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
14/579,419 12/22/2014 Namiko Naka P3114US00 2768
38834 7590 10/02/2020
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 LEESBURG PIKE
SUITE 7500
TYSONS, VA 22182
EXAMINER
LYNCH, MEGAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte NAMIKO NAKA,
TATSUHISA NOMURA, and
KIYOKO HASHIKAWA
__________

Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–18. Claim 12 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Yachiyo
Industrial Co., Ltd. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed July 29, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to crochet hooks for hand
crocheting, and to grip bodies for crochet hooks.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 3
are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A crochet hook comprising:
a rod-like crochet-hook shaft having a tip formed with a
hook portion, and a grip body covering a base-end side of the
crochet-hook shaft, with the tip of the shaft protruding therefrom;
wherein
the grip body includes a base-end portion which has a
substantially uniform cross-section taken in a vertical direction
to a longitudinal axis of the grip body, and a grip portion formed
on a tip-end side of the base-end portion and formed with a recess
on a side in its outer circumference;
the recess is formed on a side where the hook portion has
a catching head, the recess having an arc-like section, with a
longitudinal center region being sunken;
the crochet-hook shaft has its tip shifted at least 0.4 mm to
a side which is away from the side formed with the recess, with
respect to a longitudinal axis of the base-end portion.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
II. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Suessman (US 2,608,077, issued Aug. 26, 1952).
III. Claims 4, 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Suessman and Sauber (US Des. 345,290, issued Mar. 22,
1994).
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

3
IV. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Suessman and Lindahl (US 7,874,182 B1, issued Jan. 25, 2011).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that claim 6 is indefinite because: (1) “[it]
is unclear how a radially outer surface can be on a radially more outer side
and also on a radially more inner side of the recess area,” and (2) “it is
unclear how a surface is radially more outer or radially more inner than
another surface.” Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 3–4.2
Appellant contends that claim 6 is clear in light of Figures 9 and 11,
which are described in paragraph 44 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant. As an initial matter, the Examiner’s first
assertion above indicates a misreading of the claim language. Claim 6
recites
the base-end portion is formed like a rod having a circular
section, and wherein
the radially outer surface of said catching head is on a
radially more outer side than the bottom surface of the recess but
a radially more inner side than an outermost surface of the base-
end portion on the side where the recess is formed.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The second clause of Claim 6 recites the
location of the radially outer surface of the catching head with respect to the
bottom surface of the recess and the location of the radially outer surface of
the catching head with respect to the outermost surface of the base-end

2 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated July 27, 2018; Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”), dated Sept. 27, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

4
portion, rather than only the location of the radially outer surface of the
catching head with respect to the bottom surface of the recess. In regard to
the Examiner’s second assertion, claim 6 recites “a circular section” with
respect to the base-end portion of the claimed crochet hook. Id. In
describing the limitations of claim 6, paragraph 44 of the Specification refers
to Figure 11, which is a front view of the crochet hook shown in Figure 9.
See Spec. ¶ 44.
Figure 11 is reproduced below.

Figure 11 above of the subject invention “is a front view of the crochet hook
in Fig. 1.” Id. at ¶ 32. Figure 11 shows the outermost surface of the base-
end portion 5 in phantom, i.e., the dotted circle. Thus, a skilled artisan
would understand the that term “radially,” when read in light of the
Specification of the subject invention, is used to compare surfaces in relation
to the center of Figure 11, (i.e., with respect to the longitudinal axis 9 of the
crochet hook (see Fig. 9)). Accordingly, claim 6 is reproduced below with
corresponding items from Figure 11 in parenthesis based on the description
provided in Spec. ¶ 44:
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

5
the base-end portion (5) is formed like a rod having a circular section
(area within dotted circle), and wherein
the radially outer surface (8a) of said catching head (8) is on a radially
more outer side than the bottom surface (dotted arc 7a) of the recess (7) but a
radially more inner side than an outermost surface (dotted circle 5) of the
base-end portion (5) on the side where the recess (7) is formed.
Stated differently, in viewing Figure 11, the top of line 8a is located
above line 7a. Further, the top of line 8a, while “shifted” (see Spec. ¶ 44),
remains located within (i.e., “radially more inner”) the dotted circle 5. We
thus find the language of claim 6 to be clear in light of Figure 11 and
paragraph 44 of the Specification.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6 as indefinite.
Rejection II – Obviousness over Suessman
As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Suessman’s
crochet hook includes a crochet-hook shaft in which “the crochet-hook shaft
has its tip (with 21) shifted to a side (i.e. bottom side) which is away from
the side (28 with 29) formed with the recess, with respect to a longitudinal
axis of the base-end portion (25).” Final Act. 4 (citing Suessman Fig. 3).
The Examiner makes similar findings as to independent claim 3. Id. at 6;
see also Ans. 4–6.
Appellant argues that “the Suessman reference [appears] to show a
cut-out portion adjacent to the tip” and “the tip of the Suessman reference is
not shown as displaced to any extent.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner’s annotated Figure 3 of Suessman is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

6

Final Act. 5. Annotated Figure 3 of Suessman above shows a side elevation
view of Suessman’s device with a crochet needle. Suessman 1:50–54. The
Examiner’s added dotted line on the left is labeled as “tip shifted to a side”
and the added dotted line to the right is labeled as “base end portion axis.”
Final Act. 5.
When a reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and
is silent as to dimensions, the drawing features are of little value in
establishing measurements. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2125; Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222
F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings
do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied
on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the
issue.”); Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing MPEP § 2125).3 Here, at best, the
Examiner’s annotated dotted line on the left of Suessman’s Figure 3
identifies an external surface of a cutout portion of the hook shaft of
Suessman’s crochet needle. See Reply Br. 34 (“The Suessman reference
merely shows a cut-out portion in the side of the crochet hook.”); see also

3 At the same time, we have been instructed by our reviewing court that they
“did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be
disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (emphasis in
original). The key term here being “clearly.”
4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Nov. 27, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

7
Appeal Br. 7–10. The Examiner does not direct us to any passages of
Suessman indicating that the tip of the hook shaft or the longitudinal axis of
the hook shaft is shifted or slanted with respect to the longitudinal axis of the
base-end portion, as required by claims 1 and 3. See Reply Br. 3 (“[T]he
Suessman reference merely shows a cut-out and not a slanting of the
longitudinal axis of the crochet-hook shaft, much less[,] th[e] specific . . .
slanting” required by the claims); see also Appeal Br. 7–10. As such, the
Examiner’s finding that Suessman’s tip of the hook shaft or the longitudinal
axis of the hook shaft is shifted or slanted with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the base-end portion, is based on speculation and is not supported by
a preponderance of the evidence. See Reply Br. 3 (“[T]he Suessman
reference does not teach any shifting of the tip and longitudinal axis of the
crochet hook.”); see also Appeal Br. 7–10. The Examiner has the initial
duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–15, and 18 as obvious over
Suessman.
Rejections III and IV – Obviousness over Suessman and either Sauber
or Lindahl
Claims 4, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim
1 or claim 3. Appeal Br. 19–22 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on
Sauber for a grip portion having a generally triangular cross-section (Final
Act. 9) and Lindahl for a hook shaft made of metal (id. at 11). Thus, the
Examiner does not rely on the teachings of either Sauber or Lindahl in any
Appeal 2020-001169
Application 14/579,419

8
manner that remedies the deficiencies of Suessman discussed above.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above in reference to
claims 1 and 3, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejections of
claims 4, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 over Suessman and Sauber or Suessman and
Lindahl.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6 112(b) Indefiniteness 6
1–3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13–15, 18
103 Suessman 1–3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13–15,
18
4, 7, 8, 16, 17 103 Suessman, Sauber 4, 7, 8, 16,
17
11 103 Suessman, Lindahl 11
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–
18

REVERSED