Ex Parte Hawes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

13706894 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
13/706,894 12/06/2012 Edwina J. HAWES 107453-2 KGB 5832
27384 7590 02/13/2018
Briscoe, Kurt G.
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA
875 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
EXAMINER
YUEN, JESSICA JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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 EDWINA J. HAWES1
__________________

Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A combination comprising:
a) a portable carrier comprising:
i) a receptacle having an interior space
adapted to removably receive an encased
heater/blower component of a hair dryer,
said receptacle comprising:
(a) ventilation netting material on
at least a portion of the receptacle
intended to cover an air intake vent of
said heater/blower; and
(b) one or more hose openings
adapted to receive an external hose of
said hair dryer; and
ii) at least one strap attached to said
receptacle for facilitating carrying of the
portable carrier by a user thereof; and
b) an encased heater/blower component of a hair
dryer contained in said receptacle.

Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–7, and 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zellous (US 7,096,597 B1, iss. Aug. 29, 2006), Ponczek
(US 3,386,184, iss. June 4, 1968), and Chappell (US 2007/0227922 A1, pub.
Oct. 4, 2007).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zellous, Ponczek, Chappell, and Sizemore (US 6,130,616, iss. Oct. 10,
2000).
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

3
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zellous, Ponczek, Chappell, and Porter (US 6,058,944, iss. May 9, 2000).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zellous, Ponczek, Chappell, and Hübner (US 3,377,715, iss. Apr. 16, 1968).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5–7, and 9–20
Rejected Over Zellous, Ponczek, and Chappell
Appellant argues claims 1, 5–7, and 9–20 as a group. Appeal Br. 6–
11. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 5–7 and 9–20 standing
or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zellous teaches a portable
carrier including an encased heater/blower component 7 of a hair dryer
(squirrel cage hot air blower) mounted on a receptacle 1 (housing), but lacks
ventilation netting and an encased heater/blower. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 6–7.
The Examiner finds that Ponczek teaches a portable carrier for a hair dryer
with netting material 54, and Chappell teaches a receptacle with an interior
space adapted to removably receive an encased heater/blower component of
a hair dryer (fan and heater 88) that is contained therein. Final Act. 3, 6–7.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to include the ventilation netting of Ponczek over an
air intake vent of Zellous to filter intake air and to contain an encased heater/
blower component of a hair dryer in the receptacle of Zellous, as taught by
Chappell, to provide a way to carry and store the heater/blower component.
Id. at 3, 7; Ans. 7–8. The Examiner reasons that Zellous’ squirrel cage type
blower 7 is an encased heater/blower of a hair dryer, and Chappell shows
such an encased hair dryer received removably in a receptacle. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

4
Appellant argues that Zellous is a hair dryer adapted to function as a
backpack and the heater/blower is not received removably in the carrier with
the hair dryer inside a further receptacle. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues
that Zellous discloses squirrel cage type hot air blower 7 as disposed on rear
surface 3 of portable housing 1 so portable housing 1 is not a receptacle that
contains blower inside 7 but instead portable housing 1 of Zellous contains
blower 7 as a distinct surface portion of rear surface 3. Reply Br. 2.
These arguments are not persuasive because they amount to individual
attacks on the references where the Examiner instead relies on the combined
teachings of the references. Zellous teaches a portable carrier as portable
housing 1 that contains squirrel cage type hot air blower 7. Whether squirrel
cage type hot air blower 7 is encased in some manner in addition to being
“[d]isposed on the rear surface” of portable housing is unclear from Zellous’
disclosure. We do not need to resolve this issue because Chappell teaches
that it is known to removably receive an encased heater/blower component
of a hot air dryer in a portable carrier as claimed. Chappell ¶ 48, Figs. 8–11.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Zellous’ portable carrier to removably
receive an encased heater/blower of a hair dryer as Chappell teaches to do to
provide a way to carry and store the encased heater/blower. Final Act. 3, 7;
Ans. 8. Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
reasoning, which is supported by Chappell’s teaching to detachably connect
such a dryer to portable carrier 80 for drying. Chappell ¶ 48, Figs. 8–11;
Final Act. 3 (citing id.). Detachability would provide a modular design to
Zellous so users could change hair dryer 7 for different needs (see Zellous,
3:13–16) or replace an inoperative dryer without replacing the entire carrier.
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

5
For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Zellous and
Chappell because to do so “would require that the entire Zellous construct,
shoulder straps and all, be inserted into a portable carrier [and] [t]his makes
no logical sense, as Zellous is already adapted for portability through his use
of shoulder straps.” Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2. This argument is not
persuasive because the Examiner is not proposing to place the entire unit of
Zellous into Chappell. Instead, the Examiner proposes to modify Zellous
based on the teachings of Chappell to make squirrel cage hot air blower 7 of
Zellous encased and removably received in portable housing 1 of Zellous as
Chappell teaches to do, and as claimed. Final Act. 3, 7; Ans. 8. Appellant’s
arguments do not address this rejection in the Final Action and Answer and,
therefore, do not apprise us of error in that rejection.
Nor does the Examiner propose to place only the heater/blower hair
dryer component 7 of Zellous in Chappell’s receptacle as Appellant asserts.
Appeal Br. 8. Instead, the Examiner modifies Zellous to make the squirrel
cage type hot air blower 7 encased and detachable based on Chappell’s
express teachings to do so in a portable housing for drying. Chappell ¶ 48,
Figs. 8–11; see Final Act. 3 (citing id.), 7; Ans. 8.
Even if claim 1 recited “a standalone hair dryer” as Appellant argues2
(Appeal Br. 9), Chappell teaches this feature. Chappell ¶ 48, Figs. 8–11.
Chappell depicts dryer 88 in dashed lines with a shell that encases fan
blades, connects to power cord 92, and detaches from port 86. Id.

2 We understand this argument to mean that the heater/blower component is
encased in a housing and also is received in a portable carrier. Appeal Br.
6–7, 9–10; Spec. 3:5–10.
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

6
As modified by the teachings of Chappell as discussed above, Zellous
includes an encased (standalone) heater/blower component of a hair dryer
that is received removably in a receptacle of a portable carrier as claimed.
Appellant’s request for “separate consideration of claim 18,” which is
raised for the first time in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2), is untimely because
it was not raised in the Appeal Brief, is not responsive to an argument raised
in the Answer, and is not shown to be raised belatedly due to good cause.
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Appeal Br. 6–11 (arguing claims 1, 5–7,
and 9–20 as a group). The Examiner’s arguments in the Answer regarding
the broadest reasonable interpretation address two issues: (1) it would have
been obvious to modify Zellous with teachings of Ponczek and Chappell to
render obvious the claimed portable carrier with an “encased heater/blower
component of a hair dryer” (Ans. 7–8); and (2) Chappell teaches portable
carrier 82 with receptacle having an interior space adapted to removably
receive an encased heater/blower component 88 of a hair dryer for carrying,
storing, and drying that would have been obvious to include in the interior
space of the portable carrier of Zellous as claimed (id. at 9–10).
Claim 18 recites that “the heater/blower component is encased in a
turtle shell-shaped covering.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). The issues
of whether Chappell teaches an encased heater/blower removably received
in a receptacle, or whether Zellous can be modified with this teaching to
removably receive an encased heater/blower, as claimed, does not require
resolution of whether Chappell or Zellous teach or suggest a heater/blower
encased in a turtle shell-shaped covering as recited in claim 18. Nor has
Appellant shown good cause for the delay in raising this issue.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5–7, and 9–20.
Appeal 2017-002871
Application 13/706,894

7
Claims 2–4 and 8
Rejected Over Zellous, Ponczek, Chappell, and Sizemore/Porter/Hübner
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Sizemore and
Hübner to teach the limitations of claims 2 and 3, and 8, respectively, does
not overcome the deficiencies of Zellous, Ponczek, or Chappell as to claim 1
from which these claims depend. See Appeal Br. 12. Because we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, this argument is not persuasive and, thus, we also
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2–4 and 8.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED