Ex Parte Sanchez-Martinez

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

11576111 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

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.
11/576,111 04/13/2007 Pedro Sanchez-Martinez 06750/Z078885Q 6339
27752 7590 05/21/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SIMPSON, SARAH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PEDRO SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ
____________

Appeal 2011-001717
Application 11/576,111
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-21 (App. Br. 1).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a motor-driven epilator (claims 1-17 and
19-21) and an epilation head for an epilator (claim 18). Claims 1 and 17 are
representative and are reproduced in the “CLAIMS APPENDIX” of
Appellant’s Brief (App. Br. 7 and 9).

Appeal 2011-001717
Application 11/576,111

2
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Inoue
1
and Sanchez-Martinez.
2

Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Inoue, Sanchez-Martinez, and Oliveau.
3

We affirm.

The combination of Inoue and Sanchez-Martinez:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support a
conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Examiner finds that Inoue suggests every element of Appellant’s
claim 1, but for “actuator elements [that] individually bring only a respective
one of the first clamping elements into clamping contact with their
associated second clamping element” (Ans. 4-5).
FF 2. For clarity, Sanchez-Martinez’s Fig. 4 is reproduced below:

“FIG. 4 is a schematic sectional view, on an enlarged scale, of the disk of”
Sanchez-Martinez’s epilating device (Sanchez-Martinez, col. 3, ll. 18-20).

1
Inoue et al., US 6,669,704 B2, issued December 30, 2003.
2
Sanchez-Martinez et al., US 6,451,028 B1, issued September 17, 2002.
3
Oliveau et al., US 5,041,123, issued August 20, 1991.
Appeal 2011-001717
Application 11/576,111

3
FF 3. Sanchez-Martinez’s FIG. 4 shows, inter alia, disk 1, movable
clamping element 5 and stationary clamping element 6 (Sanchez-Martinez,
col. 4, ll. 10-14).
FF 4. As illustrated in Sanchez-Martinez’s FIG. 4 “disk 1 is equipped with
two openings 15, through which pressure pins 16 extend. The movable
clamping element 5 can be pivoted to and from between the two positions
identified with the aid of the pressure pins 16 and the rocker bearing or
bearing 18” (Sanchez-Martinez, col. 4, ll. 38-42).
FF 5. The rotary cylinder of Sanchez-Martinez’s epilating device “has a
multiplicity of disks 1 arranged in a roughly coaxial and adjacent
relationship to one another” (Sanchez-Martinez, col. 3, ll. 42-43).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Inoue and Sanchez-Martinez, Examiner
concludes that, at the time of Appellant’s claimed invention, it would have
been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art “to modify
the device of Inoue wherein the actuator elements individually bring only a
respective one of the first clamping elements into clamping contact with
their associated second clamping element” (Ans. 6).
In response, Appellant contends that Sanchez-Martinez “disclose[s]
that the epilator comprises a plurality of adjacent disks arranged in roughly
coaxial and adjacent relationship. These adjacent disks form multiple,
adjacent clamping pairs actuated by a single actuator pin (16) to open and
close the clamping pairs all together” (App. Br. 4). We are not persuaded.
We agree that Sanchez-Martinez suggests an epilator that comprises a
plurality of adjacent disks (FF 5). However, Sanchez-Martinez suggests that
each “disk 1 is equipped with two openings 15, through which pressure pins
Appeal 2011-001717
Application 11/576,111

4
16 extend” causing moveable clamping element 5 to pivot between an open
position (away from its associated second clamping element 6) and a closed
position (wherein it is in contact with its associated second clamping
element 6) (FF 2-4). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that Sanchez-Martinez’s clamping pairs “are not disclosed as
operating individually as required by the pending claims” (App. Br. 4).
As set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007):
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his
or her skill.

Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that a person of
ordinary skill in this art would not have been motivated to modify Inoue as
set forth by Examiner (App. Br. 4).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence on this record supports a conclusion
of obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Inoue and Sanchez-Martinez is
affirmed. Claims 2-16 and 18-21 are not separately argued and fall together
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-001717
Application 11/576,111

5
The combination of Inoue, Sanchez-Martinez, and Oliveau:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support a
conclusion of obviousness?
ANALYSIS
Having found no deficiency in the combination of Inoue and Sanchez-
Martinez, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Oliveau
“adds nothing to the discussion above regarding the obviousness of the
presently claimed epilator device” (App. Br. 5).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence on this record supports a conclusion
of obviousness. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Inoue, Sanchez-Martinez, and Oliveau
is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc