Ex Parte Kammer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2017

12942147 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

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.
12/942,147 11/09/2010 Carl G. Kammer 27861-816 (SP-1845) 1123
49376 7590
Christopher M. Goff
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
PRONE, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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):
uspatents @ armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL G. KAMMER
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carl G. Kammer (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—10, 14—16, 19-23, and 27.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant acknowledges that all these claims stand rejected but purports to
appeal only the rejection of claim 1—3, 6—10, and 27. App. Br. 1; but see
Notice of Appeal (filed 9/17/13) (indicating the rejection of all pending
claims is appealed). No amendment canceling claims 14—16 and 19—23 has
been entered after the Final Rejection. See App. Br. 1 (indicating that no
post-Final Office Action amendments have be filed). Accordingly, all of the
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to electric hair trimmers, and
particularly to a cutter head for such trimmers. Spec. 11. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An electric hair trimmer comprising:
a handle comprising a drive motor and an eccentric drive
pin operatively connected to the drive motor; and
a cutter head releasably connectable to the handle for
operative connection with the eccentric drive pin, the cutter head
comprising:
a housing having an interior compartment; and
a cutting assembly comprising a pair of cutting
blades, at least one of the cutting blades being in operative
connection with the drive motor upon connection of the
cutter head with the handle for reciprocating movement of
said at least one of the blades via rotation of the eccentric
drive pin, at least a portion of the cutting assembly being
disposed within the interior compartment such that the
housing supports the cutting assembly, the cutting
assembly further having a front edge disposed outside of
the interior compartment for trimming hair upon operation
of the trimmer,
the housing having a plurality of guard fingers at
least in part wrapped over the front edge of the cutting
assembly to inhibit the front edge against contacting a
person’s skin during hair trimming.
pending claims, claims 1—3, 6—10, 14—16, 19-23, and 27, are before us on
appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c).
2
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
THE REJECTION
Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—10,
14—16, 19-23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Locke et al. (US 4,813,133, iss. Mar. 21, 1989) and Fujikawa et al.
(5,185,931, iss. Feb. 16, 1993).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a handle having a motor and an eccentric
drive pin operatively connected thereto. Claim 1 further recites “at least one
of the cutting blades being in operative connection with the drive motor . . .
for reciprocating movement of said at least one of the blades via rotation of
the eccentric drive pin.” App. Br., Claims Appendix.
The Examiner found that Locke discloses much of the subject matter
of claim 1, but does not disclose the hair trimmer’s movement being by way
of a rotating eccentric pin. Final Act. 2—3. Locke’s device utilizes an
oscillator to provide the reciprocating movement of the cutter. App. Br. 4;
see Final Act. 2; see also Lock, 4:39-49. The Examiner turns to Fujikawa
and finds Fujikawa teaches “it is old and well known in the art of hair
trimmers to incorporate an eccentric drive pin (column 4 lines 44-48) and
the at least one blade reciprocates via rotation of the eccentric drive pin
(column 4 lines 44-48).” Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons it would have
been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide Locke’s device with the drive
setup taught by Fujikawa because “all claimed elements were known in the
prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as
claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and
the combination would have yielded predictable results.” Id. at 4. The
3
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
Examiner further finds and reasons that an oscillating drive pin setup and an
eccentric drive pin setup were old and well known ways to reciprocate the
blade, and therefore it would have been obvious to apply either. Id. at 6; see
also Advisory Action (8/20/13) (“It would be well within one’s technical
skill to have exchanged any known means for reciprocating blades in for the
reciprocating means of Locke et al. including the eccentric drive as taught by
Fujikawa et al. because the substitution of one known element for another
would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known
in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements
as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function
and the combination would have yielded predictable results.”). We agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and adopt the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning.
Appellant concedes that the use of an eccentric drive pin for
reciprocating a trimmer blade was not new, but argues that Locke cannot be
modified without changing its principle of operation. App. Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellant refers to Locke’s oscillator member that is so
configured to resiliently engage the drive member and of a material that
allows for that resilient engagement. Id. at 5—6 (citing Locke, 4:26—38,
7:18—21). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Locke to have an eccentric pin configuration would remove the oscillator
along with its “resilient grip” benefit. Id. at 6. We are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. In the portions of Locke cited by Appellant, the
resilient engagement of the oscillator is described as a characteristic of the
oscillator component. See Locke, 4:26—38, 7:18—21. The device at issue in
this appeal is not the oscillator, but the overall trimmer. As pointed out by
4
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
the Examiner, both references teach moving the cutting blade with the
reciprocal movement. Ans. 6. We fail to see how the proposed modification
would change Locke’s principle of operation as a hair trimmer.
Appellant also argues that replacing the oscillator of Locke with an
eccentric drive pin setup such as that taught by Lujikawa would require “a
complete overhaul” of Locke’s hair trimmer. App. Br. 5. Appellant,
however, fails to point to a particular problem or obstacle that one of
ordinary skill in the art would face in replacing the oscillator setup of Locke
with an eccentric drive pin setup such as that disclosed by Lujikawa. We
again note that Appellant acknowledges that the use of an eccentric drive pin
for reciprocating a trimmer blade was not new, id. at 5, and further note that
Appellant’s own specification teaches that a trimmer may utilize either an
eccentric pin or an oscillating pin, without suggesting any particular problem
that must be solved or any substantial change in design to accommodate the
different arrangements, Spec. 148. We are not apprised of any reason as to
why replacing the oscillator setup of Locke with an eccentric drive pin setup
such as that taught by Lujikawa would have been beyond the abilities of the
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We see no
error in the Examiner’s finding to that effect. Ans. 6 (“It would have been
well within one’s technical skill to have replaced the drive 26 with any
known drive that would allow for the movable blade/drive member to
achieve the desired reciprocating movement including the eccentric drive as
taught by Lujikawa et al.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Locke and Lujikawa. Independent claim 27 similarly
contains a recitation regarding a cutting blade being in operative connection
5
Appeal 2014-004917
Application 12/942,147
to the motor for reciprocating movement via rotation of the eccentric drive
pin. Appellant does not offer separate arguments for claim 27 and relies on
the unpersuasive arguments made in the context of claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Appellant, as mentioned above, purports to not appeal the rejection as to
claims 14—16 and 19-23, see supra 1 n.l, and therefore does not offer
arguments against the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. Appellant does
not separately argue the remaining claims on appeal, which directly or
indirectly depend from claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—3, 6—10, 14—16, 19-23, and 27 as unpatentable over Locke and
Fujikawa.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3, 6—10, 14—16, 19—
23, and 27 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6