Ex Parte Bouphanouvong

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14692806 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/692,806 04/22/2015
44088 7590
Kaufhold Dix Patent Law
P. 0. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
04/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nakhonphet Bouphanouvong
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SK11043 7384
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
j ason@kaufboldlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAKHONPHET BOUPHANOUVONG
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 11, 2017) ("Final Act.")
rejecting claims 1 and 4--8, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons explained below, we are not informed of error in the
rejection. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
1 The named inventor is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A scraping assembly configured to scrape a surface
thereby facilitating the surface to be smoothed, said assembly
compnsmg:
a handle having a first end, a second end and a bottom side
extending between said first end and said second end, said handle
being elongated between said first end and said second end;
a pair of grips, each of said grips being attached to said
handle wherein said grips are configured to be gripped;
a scraper being removably attached to said handle, said
scraper being positioned on said second end wherein said scraper
is configured to be positioned to scrape a support surface, said
scraper having a pair of cutting surfaces such that a selected one
of said cutting surfaces is exposed on said second end; and
wherein each of said grips has an upper side and a lower
side, said upper side being positioned to abut said bottom side
such that said pair of grips are spaced and extending from said
bottom side of said handle, one of said grips being positioned
adjacent to said first end, one of said grips being positioned
between said first end and said second end, wherein said lower
side of each of said grips comprising an alternating sequence of
hills and valleys, said hills and valleys being distributed along
each of said grips wherein said hills and valleys are configured
to enhance a grip of each of said grips.
Rejection
Claims 1 and 4--8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Amato (US 5,419,000, issued May 30, 1995) and Gray
(US Des. 397,829, issued Sept. 1, 1998). Ans. 2-5.
2
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
DISCUSSION
The Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 14, 2017, "Ans.") modifies the
rejection of the claims in the Final Office Action by removing the Gratsias
and Morales references, which the Examiner considers superfluous. Ans. 2.
We note Appellant does not file a Reply Brief. We consider the modified
rejection in view of Appellant's arguments provided in the Appeal Brief
(filed Sept. 11, 2017, "Br.").
Appellant argues all claims together as a group. Br. 6-8. We select
claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal of all claims on the basis of
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues "the Examiner has improperly used applicant's
claim 1 as a recipe for selecting and combining isolated elements of various
references and has used the benefits achieved by applicant's claimed
structure--benefits described only in applicant's disclosure--in hindsight as
the motivation for making the asserted combination of references." Br. 6.
Appellant contends:
Br. 7.
The primary reference is a paint brush, one reference is a pair of
snips or cutters, another is a razor. There is no commonality in
the manner of use or purpose of these various devices such that
a conclusion of obviousness is proper without further
consideration as to why. The devices when being used are
gripped and manipulated differently.
Appellant's arguments do not inform us of error in the rejection. As
modified, the Examiner relies on only Amato and Gray in rejecting the
claims. See Ans. 2-5. The Examiner finds Amato teaches a scraper with all
elements of claim 1 except a pair of grips as recited in claim 1. Ans. 2-3
3
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
( citing Amato Figs. 1 and 3). The Examiner finds Gray teaches the grips as
recited in the claims, finding and reasoning that "it would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a pair
of grips as taught by Gray to the handle of Amato, to improve gripping."
Ans. 4 (citing Gray Figs. 1, 4). The Final Office Action includes the same
reasoning for using a pair of grips on Amato' s handle. Final Act. 3.
Appellant does not directly address the Examiner's reasoning. We consider,
however, whether Appellant's contention that there is no commonality in the
manner or use of Amato's brush and Gray's razor, Br. 7, undermines the
Examiner's reasoning.
Amato teaches a brush with a scraper on the end of the handle
opposite the brush. See Amato Abstract, Figs. 1-3. Figures 1 through 3 of
Amato are reproduced below.
Figure 1 of Amato is an exploded view of the proximal end of the brush
handle with the scraper plate, Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view of the
proximal end of the brush handle showing the relationship between the
4
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
scraper plate, the fastener, the handle, and the wing nut, and Figure 3 is a top
view of the brush and scraper apparatus with a scraper plate attached. See
Amato co 1. 3, 1. 64---co 1. 4, 1. 5. 2
Gray shows a design for a safety razor. See Gray Title, Fig. 1. Figure
4 of Gray is reproduced below.
Figure 4 of Gray shows a safety razor that has a handle with a ridged grip.
The grip is provided in multiple sections on both sides of the handle, and
appears to be a separate piece attached to the handle.
Although Gray's safety razor has a different purpose than Amato' s
brush with scraper, we are not persuaded that this undermines the
Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have added a
grip like that in Gray to Amato' s handle for the purpose of improving
gripping. As the Examiner points out, both are handheld tools. Ans. 6. We
agree with the Examiner that"[ w ]hen one skilled [in] the art looks for
improvement on gripping of a handle of a hand held tool, he/she will look
for grippers on all the hand held tools but not limiting to the scraping tool as
argued by Appellant." Id. In addition, the ubiquity of safety razors and
other tools with grips on the handles would have suggested to one of
2 We note that Amato' s description of the figures appears to have switched
the descriptions of Figures 1 and 3.
5
Appeal2018-003986
Application 14/692,806
ordinary skill in the art that the handle of Amato would benefit from a ridged
grip such as that shown in Gray.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Amato and Gray. For
the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 4--8, which are rejected
on the same ground and not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 4--8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6