Ex parte CAMPO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 8, 1997

08297021 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 8, 1997)

Application for patent filed August 29, 1994. According1
to the appellants, the application is a division of Application
No. 07/628,883, filed December 18, 1990, now U.S. Patent No.
5,399,204.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THEODORE J. CAMPO, DONALD R. CHAULK, WILLIAM J. FELTON,
MANOHAR S. GREWAL, JOHN A. HINDLEY, JOHN F. KRANTZ,
MARK D. LINCOLN, KEVIN P. MC DONOUGH and JAMES W. WALSH
____________
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,0211
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 51
through 53. Claims 31 through 50 are withdrawn from
consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1
through 17, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 28 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
3
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a method of treating
razor blades. Claims 51 and 52 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims, as they appear in
the appellants' brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Clague et al. (Clague) 2,746,466
May 22, 1956
Grefe et al. (Grefe) 3,498,257
Mar. 3, 1970
Sastri 3,811,189 May
21, 1974
Tardoskegyi 3,868,272
Feb. 25, 1975
Weihe 4,076,554 Feb.
28, 1978
Claims 18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 51 through 53
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Grefe in combination with Weihe, Clague, Sastri and Tardoskegyi.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
4
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
June 26, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 10,
filed April 1, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed August
2, 1996) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness only
with respect to claim 51. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 18 through 20, 23,
26, 27, 29, 30, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning
for this determination follows.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
5
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness
is established by presenting evidence that the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based on
§ 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that
the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
6
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure
as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the
isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing
Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d
1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With this as background, we turn to the examiner's rejection
of independent claim 52 and claims 18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29,
30 and 53 dependent therefrom.
We agree with the appellants that all the limitations
recited in independent claim 52 are not met by the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Grefe, Weihe, Clague,
Sastri and Tardoskegyi). In particular, it is our opinion that
the combined teachings of the applied prior art fail to teach or
suggest moving a blade stack through a demagnetizing means and
thereafter, moving the blade stack through a pre-wash station, a
wash station, a rinse station and a final rinse station. In our
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
The examiner relied exclusively on Sastri to suggest the2
recited step of moving the blade stack through a demagnetizing
means (answer, pp. 5 and 7).
See column 3, lines 30-36, of Sastri.3
See page 9, lines 8-12, of the specification.4
7
view, Sastri's disclosure of moving a blade stack through a2
demagnetizing means after the blade stack is cleaned by immersion
in trichloroethylene, subjected to ultrasonic cleaning, rinsed in
a mixture of acetone and methanol and cleaned in warm air would3
not have provided any suggestion, absent the appellants'
teachings, to demagnetize the blade stack before the blade stack
is cleaned. Demagnetizing the blade stack before the blade stack
is cleaned insures that the blades are not attracted to one
another, and therefore insures that the riffling of the blades
will take place during the cleaning operation. 4
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the standing
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 52 and dependent claims 18
through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 53.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of independent claim
51. After considering the collective teachings of Grefe, Weihe
and Clague, we agree with the examiner that the claimed invention
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
The examiner relied on Sastri for a teaching of5
demagnetizing a razor blade and relied on Tardoskegyi for a
teaching of an air curtain (answer, pp. 4-5). However, these
features are not recited in claim 51.
See column 5, lines 11-21 and 67-73, of Grefe.6
See Figures 3-6 of Grebe.7
8
as defined by independent claim 51 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
invention. Thus, we regard the examiner's application of the
teachings of Sastri and Tardoskegyi to be mere surplusage. 5
Grefe discloses an apparatus for treating razor blades. The
apparatus includes a blade holder 68 that will permit the stack
of blades to riffle/flutter. A conveyor chain 22 moves the6
blade holder in the washer section 24 and dryer section 26.7
The examiner determined that Grefe failed to disclose moving
the stack of blades through a pre-wash station, a wash station, a
rinse station and a final rinse station and circulating the rinse
and final rinse water to the pre-wash and rinse stations,
respectively (answer, p. 4).
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
See column 3, lines 1-26, of Weihe.8
See column 2, lines 16-32, of Clague.9
9
Weihe discloses a process for cleaning articles carried on
conveyor 22 through a dishwashing machine. The dishwashing
machine utilizes a pre-wash zone 10, a wash zone 12 and a rinse
zone 14. The primary water supply enters the machine through
spray nozzle 32 in the rinse zone 14. Water draining from the
rinse zone 14 is collected in sump 28 and pumped to spray nozzle
34 in the pre-wash zone 10.8
Clague discloses a conveyor dishwasher. The dishwasher has
a pre-wash space 4, a wash space 5 and a rinse and sanitizing
space 6. Fresh hot water is supplied through pipe 13 to rinsing
and sanitizing devices 14 (located at the downstream end of the
rinse and sanitizing space 6 as shown in Figure I and II). The
used hot water is captured and recirculated in the rinse tank 12
which supplies water to the rinse spray tubes 8 (located at the
upstream end of the rinse and sanitizing space 6 as shown in
Figure I and II).9
Based on the teachings of Weihe and Clague, the examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
10
skill in the art to modify Grefe to move the stack of blades
through a pre-wash station, a wash station, a rinse station and a
final rinse station and to circulate the rinse and final rinse
water to the pre-wash and rinse stations, respectively (answer,
p. 4).
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner’s view that the
above noted modification of Grefe would result in a method which
corresponds to the method recited in claim 51 in all respects.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this case, we are in agreement
with the examiner that the combined teachings of Grefe, Weihe and
Clague would have been suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of appellants' invention of modifying Grefe's
method of washing stacks of blades to include a pre-wash station,
a wash station, a rinse station and a final rinse station and of
circulating the rinse and final rinse water to the pre-wash and
rinse stations, respectively, thereby providing a more efficient
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
11
washing system as suggested by Weihe and Clague. The economic
advantage of recirculating rinse water as well as providing
stations for pre-wash, wash, rinse and final rinse are well known
expedients in this art as shown by Weihe and Clague. Thus,
contrary to the appellants' arguments, it is our view that the
examiner did not engage in the use of impressible hindsight in
rejecting claim 51.
We note that the appellants' arguments concerning (1) the
separation of the zones from each other (brief, pp. 12 and 15),
(2) the degree of cleanliness achieved (brief, pp. 12-13),
(3) air curtains (brief, pp. 15-16), and (4) demagnetizing the
blades (brief, pp. 16-17) are not commensurate in scope with
claim 51. Additionally, as to the argued deficiencies of each
reference on an individual basis, we note that nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
12
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
13
AUBREY C. BRINE
24 NORTH STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
1
APPENDIX
51. A method of manufacturing a razor blade having a
plurality of openings therein which includes the steps of:
providing a holding fixture having a pair of rods each having one
end fixed to an end support surface and one end free; stacking a
plurality of blades on said fixture with the rods extending
through the blade openings such that the blade edges are
substantially at right angles to a continuous path of move-
ment;
supporting the blades on the rods such that the blades are
free to riffle under fluid pressure directed against the blade
edges;
moving the stack of blades along the continuous path through
a pre-wash station, a wash station, a rinse station and a final
rinse station with the end support surface foremost during the
blade movement;
applying a liquid to the stack of blades at each of the pre-
wash, wash, rinse and final rinse stations, the application of
liquid being directed at an angle and pressure to cause riffling
of the blades within the stack of blades;
providing the non-contaminated water for said application at
the final rinse station;
circulating the applied water from the final rinse station
to the rinse station for said application at the rinse station;
and
circulating the applied water from the rinse station to the
pre-wash station for said application at the pre-wash station.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
2
52. A method of manufacturing a razor blade which includes
the steps of:
stacking a plurality of blades with the edges substantially
at right angles to a selected continuous path;
supporting the blades such that the blades are free to
riffle under fluid pressure directed against the blade edges;
providing a demagnetizing means along said path and moving
the blade stack through said demagnetizing means to ensure
separation of the blades during movement along said path;
thereafter, moving the stack at blades along the continuous
path through a pre-wash station, a wash station, a rinse station
and a final rinse station, each of said stations being separated
by wall structure having an opening formed therein to provide for
movement of the stack of blades therethrough and providing air
under pressure adjacent said wall structure between said wash
station, rinse station and final rinse station to form an air
curtain adjacent each of the openings;
applying a liquid to the stack of blades at each of the pre-
wash, wash, rinse and final rinse stations, the application being
directed at an angle and pressure to cause riffling of the blades
within the stack;
providing non-contaminated water for said application at the
final rinse station;
circulating the applied water from the final rinse station
to the rinse station for said application at the rinse station;
and
circulating the applied water from the rinse station to the
pre-wash station for said application at the pre-wash station.
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
3
APPEAL NO. 96-3555 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/297,021
APJ NASE
APJ FRANKFORT
APJ McQUADE
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Prepared By: Delores A. Lowe
DRAFT TYPED: 06 Aug 97
FINAL TYPED: