Ex Parte Ferraro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2009

10407440 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANK A. FERRARO
____________

Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: 1 February 23, 2009
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL and
STEFAN STAICOVICI Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal No. 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank A. Ferraro (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention is drawn towards a disposable razor having
a disposable handle 10 and a removable razor head 11 that are attached
together. Specification 4, ¶ 15. The attachment is made between three
prongs 12, 13, and 14 extending outward from the end of the handle 10 and
the chamber 15 positioned on the razor head 11, such that the prongs are
inserted into the chamber to form an interference fit. Specification 5, ¶ 16
and Specification 6, ¶ 18.
Claims 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. A razor unit comprising:

a handle having a section at one end thereof formed of at
least one extension member projecting outwardly
therefrom, said extension member having a base end and
a distal end; and

a replaceable cartridge containing at least one blade and
having a separate enclosing chamber positioned thereon
and extending therefrom, said enclosing chamber
comprising four enclosing surfaces including a top
surface, an oppositely-disposed bottom surface and two
opposed side surfaces interconnecting said top and
2
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

bottom surfaces, said enclosing chamber having an inner
end and an open end and wherein

said extension member is insertable through said open
end into said enclosing chamber and, when inserted into
said enclosing chamber, is enclosed within said enclosing
chamber with an underside of said extension member in
releasable engagement with the bottom surface of said
enclosing chamber to retain said replaceable cartridge on
said handle,

said bottom surface of said enclosing chamber and said
underside of said extension member have respective
mating elements,

said mating elements are positioned on said underside of
said extension member at a position closer to said distal
end than said base end and on said bottom surface of said
enclosing chamber closer to said inner end than said open
end with said mating element on said extension member
engaging said mating element on said bottom surface of
said enclosing chamber so as to snap together to hold
said enclosing chamber and said extension member
together when said extension member is fully inserted
into said enclosing chamber, and

said mating elements form an interference fit, which is
sufficient to hold said replaceable cartridge onto said
handle during shaving but which allows a user to remove
said replaceable cartridge from said handle by applying a
force along said handle to disengage said mating
elements.
3
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Trotta US 4,422,237 Dec. 27, 1983
Tremblay US 4,754,516 Jul. 5, 1988
Carson, III (“Carson”) US 5,331,740 Jul. 26, 1994

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trotta in view of Tremblay.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trotta in view of Tremblay and further in view of Carson.

THE ISSUES
1. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Trotta and
Tremblay would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to replace the snap fit connection of Trotta with the
interlocking connection of Tremblay?
2. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the combined teachings of
Trotta and Tremblay do not disclose removing the replaceable
cartridge from the handle “by applying a force along said
handle to disengage said mating elements” that form the
connection between the replaceable cartridge and the handle?

4
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 848 F. 2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Trotta discloses a razor handle for use with a shaving unit
(cartridge). Trotta, col. 1, ll. 32-34.
2. The razor handle includes a grip portion 2, a neck portion 4, and
a wedge-shaped protrusion 6. Trotta, col. 2, ll. 21-22, 26, and
32-34 and fig. 1.
3. The razor handle is attached to the shaving unit by introducing
the protrusion 6 into a cavity c of a housing portion h having
inwardly directed detents d and d’. The base portion of the
protrusion 6 overrrides the detents d and d’ which snap into the
recesses 34 and 36 at the base of the protrusion 6, hence locking
the shaving unit s on the handle. Trotta, col. 2, ll. 59-65 and
fig. 4.
4. By plastically deforming the housing portion h of the shaving
unit s the handle can be withdrawn from the shaving unit s and
reused with subsequent shaving units. Trotta, col. 2, l. 67
through col. 3, l. 2.
5
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

5. Tremblay discloses a removable attachment between a handle 1
having handle rods 3 and 3’and a brush head 7. Tremblay, col.
3, ll. 14-15 and 22-23 and fig. 1.
6. The handle rods 3 and 3’ include outwardly open notches 13
and 13’ and the free ends are outwardly beveled at 14 and 14’.
Tremblay, col. 3, ll. 27-31 and fig. 2.
7. The head 7 includes a rectangular housing 15 having two
detents 17 and 17’. Tremblay, col. 3, ll. 32-36 and fig. 3.
8. The handle 1 is connected to the head 7 by inserting the handle
1 into the housing 15 until the lower ends of rods 3 and 3’ come
into contact with the tongues 21 and 21’ such that the notches
13 and 13’ become interlocked with the detents 17 and 17’ of
the head 7. This interlocking occurs by merely bending the
rods 3 and 3’ toward each other. Tremblay, col. 3, ll. 43-52 and
62-66.
9. The handle 1 can be removed from the head 7 by forcing the
rods 3 and 3’ against the resilient tongue 21 such that the lower
ends of rods 3 and 3’ can be brought towards one another and
thereby avoid the detents 17 and 17’. Tremblay, col. 3, l. 68
through col. 4, l. 7.
10. The Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition of
the term “along.”
11. Figure 5 of the Appellant’s drawings shows a force “F”
oriented obliquely with respect to the handle 10.
12. The customary and ordinary meaning of the term “along” is “1.
on or beside the length of; over or throughout the length of.”
6
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

Webster's New World Dictionary 39 (David B. Guralnik ed., 2nd
Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim construction
When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).

Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject
matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)
7
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

While there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, “the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of
endeavor, design incentives and other market
forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. 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.
Id. at 1740. We must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Id.

OPINION2
The obviousness rejection based upon Trotta and Tremblay
Issue (1)
The Appellant argues that the “teachings of Tremblay do not motivate
or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Trotta reference

2 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed July 30, 2007, the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed December 3, 2007, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Answer”), mailed October 1, 2007.
8
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

and simply move the interference fit of Trotta to the tip of the protrusion”
(App. Br. 7) (underlining added). Pointing to Figure 2 of Tremblay the
Appellant argues that the space between handle rods 3 and 3’ (App. Br. 7),
“Space A”, must be included in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the razor handle of Trotta and Tremblay in order for a user to remove the
handle, hence to release the interference fit (App. Br. 9). Finally, the
Appellant concludes that “it would not be obvious, without additional
modifications, to simply move the interference fit to the protrusion in Trotta
in light of Tremblay” (App. Br. 9). In response, the Examiner takes the
position that the Appellant “has provided no reason why the spacing found
in the handle and extension member of Tremblay cannot be provided on the
handle and extension member of Trotta (Answer 6).
In this case, Trotta discloses a removable razor handle for use with a
shaving unit (cartridge) that includes a grip portion 2, a neck portion 4, and
a wedge-shaped protrusion 6 (FF 1, 2, and 4). The razor handle is attached
to the shaving unit by introducing the protrusion 6 into a cavity c of a
housing portion h having inwardly directed detents d and d’ such that the
protrusion 6 overrrides the detents d and d’ that snap into the recesses 34
and 36 at the base of the protrusion 6, hence locking the shaving unit s on
the handle (FF 3). Tremblay discloses a removable attachment between a
handle 1 having handle rods 3 and 3’ and a brush head 7 (FF 5). The handle
1 is connected to the head 7 by inserting the handle 1 into a housing 15 until
the lower ends of rods 3 and 3’ come into contact with tongues 21 and 21’
such that the notches 13 and 13’ become interlocked with detents 17 and 17’
of the head 7 (FF 6-8). Hence, we agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to replace the Trotta
9
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

handle connection with the Tremblay handle connection because both
references teach removable handle connections, and thus it is no more than
“the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere
application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement.” KSR, 550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 174. Specifically, this
would involve merely the substitution of one type of interlocking attachment
with another known type of interlocking attachment. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would readily appreciate that the interference fit taught by
Tremblay, if substituted for the protrusion and detent arrangement of Trotta,
would provide a secure and removable interference fit between the handle
and the shaving unit in much the same manner as the interference fit in
Trotta’s system. Hence, the substitution appears to be the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Although, we
appreciate the Appellant’s argument that the modification of Trotta in light
of Tremblay “would not be obvious, without additional modifications” (App.
Br. 9), we note that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.
Moreover, the Appellant does not provide any evidence to show that
modification of Trotta to provide the interlocking connection of Tremblay
would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in
the art. We thus conclude that the substitution would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Appellant’s invention.
For the above reasons, the Appellant fails to demonstrate that the Examiner
erred in determining that the combined teachings of Trotta and Tremblay
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the snap
fit connection of Trotta with the interlocking connection of Tremblay.
10
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

Issue (2)
The Appellant argues that even if Trotta were to be modified, as
suggested by the Examiner, the combined teachings would not teach
removing the replaceable cartridge from the handle “by applying a force
along said handle to disengage said mating elements” that form the
connection between the replaceable cartridge and the handle (App. Br. 9)
(underlining added). According to the Appellant, the interference fit in the
razor handle of Trotta as modified by Tremblay is eliminated by squeezing
the handle (rods 3 and 3’ of Tremblay), hence by “applying a lateral or radial
force on the handle” (App. Br. 9), which is in contrast to the claimed
invention that requires that the force be “along” the handle. In other words,
the Appellant appears to argue that the “force required to release the mating
elements of the Tremblay device is a force perpendicular to the handle and
not one along the handle” (Reply Br. 6) (italics in original). As far as we
understand, the Appellant would have us interpret the term “along” to mean
that the direction of the release force is parallel to or in the direction of the
longitudinal axis of the handle. We disagree with the Appellant’s position
for two reasons. First, we note that the Specification does not provide an
explicit definition of the term “along” (FF 10). As such, we next look to the
dictionary to find that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“along” is “on or beside the length of” (FF 12). As shown above, handle 1
of Tremblay can be removed from the head 7 by forcing together the lower
ends of rods 3 and 3’ to avoid the detents 17 and 17’ and release the
interference fit (FF 9). As such, a person of ordinary skill would readily
appreciate that when removing the handle from the shaving unit of Trotta as
modified by Tremblay, in order disengage the interference fit, the force is
11
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

applied in a direction that brings the lower ends of rods 3 and 3’ together,
hence in a direction on the length of the handle, that is, in a direction which
is “along” the handle. Second, we note that similarly to our interpretation of
the term “along,” Figure 5 of the Appellant’s drawings shows a force “F”
that is applied obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the handle (FF 11), hence
the force “F” is applied on or beside the length of the handle, and is not
parallel to or in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the handle, as the
Appellant’s argument implies. In conclusion, we find that the Appellant
fails to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Trotta and Tremblay
do not disclose removing the replaceable cartridge from the handle “by
applying a force along said handle to disengage said mating elements” that
form the connection between the replaceable cartridge and the handle
(underlining added).
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant’s arguments do not persuade
us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Trotta
in view of Tremblay. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
With respect to claim 2, the Appellant argues that claim 2 is “patentable…as
well by virtue of the additional claim recitations included therein” (App. Br.
9). However, the Appellant fails to show which claim recitations are not
taught by the combined teachings of Trotta and Tremblay. Statements
baldly submitting that limitations are not present in the prior art are not
persuasive as to error on part of the Examiner when the Examiner has
specified portions of the prior art that describe those limitations. Hence, the
Appellant’s argument as to claim 2 likewise fails to demonstrate error in the
rejection of claim 2 over Trotta in view of Tremblay. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 2 is likewise sustained.
12
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

The obviousness rejection based upon Trotta, Tremblay, and Carson
With respect to claim 3 the Appellant appears to argue that Carson
does not overcome the perceived deficiencies of Trotta and Tremblay (App.
Br. 10). For the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, the Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3 over the combined teachings of Trotta, Tremblay,
and Carson. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Appellant fails to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Trotta and Tremblay
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace
the snap fit connection of Trotta with the interlocking connection of
Tremblay.
2. The Appellant fails to demonstrate that the combined teachings of
Trotta and Tremblay do not disclose removing the replaceable
cartridge from the handle “by applying a force along said handle to
disengage said mating elements” that form the connection between the
replaceable cartridge and the handle.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Trotta in view of Tremblay is affirmed.
13
Appeal 2008-4400
Application 10/407,440

The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Trotta in view of Tremblay and further in view
of Carson 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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

JRG

FITZPATRICK CELLA (ENERGIZER)
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
38TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10112
14