Ex Parte PazosSchroeder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

12828401 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/828,401 07/01/2010
27752 7590 09/25/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marta PazosSchroeder
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Z-8477 6764
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteMARTAPAZOSSCHROEDER
Appeal 2016-006869
Application 12/828,401
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marta PazosSchroeder (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision, set forth in the Final Action (Feb. 3, 2015,
hereinafter "Final Act."), rejecting claims 1 and 14, which are the only
claims pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief ( entered Nov. 3, 2015, hereinafter "Appeal
Br."), the real party in interest is The Gillette Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006869
Application 12/828,401
INVENTION
Appellant's invention "relates to razors, and particularly to
improvements in razor cartridge components and manufacturing processes
thereof." Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim pending
and is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A razor cartridge comprising at least one erodible label
disposed on at least one exterior surface of at least one
component of said razor cartridge via at least one type of label
transfer technology wherein said at least one type of label
transfer technology comprises a heat transfer process, a silk
screen process, a roll coating process, a flexographic process, a
rotogravure process, or any combination thereof.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REJECTI0NS 2
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Siamak (US 5,388,331, iss. Feb.
14, 1995) and Bozikis (US 2002/0059733 Al, pub. May 23,
2002).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Staats-Oels (US 1,633,139, iss.
June 21, 1927), Howells (US 2008/0189959 Al, pub. Aug. 14,
2008), Bozikis, and AAPA (Applicant's Admitted Prior Art).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 14 as being
unpatentable in view of Szczepanowski, Bozikis, and AAP A. Ans. 6.
2
Appeal 2016-006869
Application 12/828,401
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner determines the claimed combination of elements in
claims 1 and 14 would have been obvious in view of Siamak and Bozikis.
Final Act. 3--4. Appellant argues that this determination is deficient because
the Examiner did not properly establish a reason, backed by evidence, for
why a skilled artisan would have been guided to the recited label transfer
technologies to dispose an erodible label on the exterior surface of a razor
cartridge. Appeal Br. 4--8. Appellant's argument is persuasive for the
following reasons.
The Examiner finds Siamak discloses "a razor cartridge comprising at
least one label ('DISPOSE') disposed on at least one exterior surface of at
least one component of said razor cartridge via at least one type of label
transfer technology," but does not disclose the label transfer technology as
being one of the ones claim 1 recites. Final Act. 3 ( citing Siamak Fig. 2).
The Examiner asserts,
AAP A teaches common label transfer technologies such
as a heat transfer process, a silk screen process, a roll coating
process, a flexographic process, a rotogravure process, or any
combination thereof for printing a label on a surface.
Bozikis teaches the use of silk screen process for printing
a label on a surface ... The silk screen process prints erodible
labels on a surface as taught by AAP A. Furthermore, it is noted
that any label generated from ink is erodible with time and
repeated uses.
Id. at 4 (citing Bozikis ,r 44). In view of these findings, the Examiner
concludes,
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time
the invention was made to use a heat transfer process . . .
3
Appeal 2016-006869
Application 12/828,401
[ selected from one of the recited type of label transfer
technologies] to print a label on the cartridge of Siamak since it
has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same
purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art.
Final Act. 4.
The problem, however, is that the Examiner has failed to establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that the Bozikis' s silk screen printing
process was known for disposing an erodible label onto an exterior surface
of a razor cartridge, as required by the claims. Nor does the Examiner
provide any reason, based on evidence in the record, for why a skilled
artisan would have even considered Bozikis' s label transfer technology to
apply an erodible label onto a razor cartridge surface.
This error appears to have been precipitated by the Examiner's
unreasonably broad interpretation of "erodible label" as including any ink
forming a label that "is erodible with time and repeated use." Final Act. 4.
The Examiner does not offer any analysis for how its construction was
reached and fails to provide any supporting citations to the Specification or
claim language to support its broad interpretation. We note, however, that
pages 2 and 7 of the Specification provide a context for understanding the
meaning of "erodible label" that is inconsistent with the Examiner's broad
interpretation. The Examiner appears to have made an additional error by
suggesting Appellant's Specification teaches a "silk screen process [that]
prints erodible labels on a surface." Id. No evidence from the Specification
is cited to support this finding by the Examiner and it is not readily apparent
what evidence from the Specification the Examiner is relying upon as
support.
4
Appeal 2016-006869
Application 12/828,401
Therefore, because the Examiner has not provided a reason supported
by a rational underpinning, which is backed-up by evidence in the record,
for why a skilled artisan would have been guided to the recited label transfer
technologies to dispose an erodible label on the exterior surface of a razor
cartridge, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 14 as
being unpatentable in view of Siamak and Bozikis.
Rejection II
The Examiner's determination that claims 1 and 14 are unpatentable
in view of Staats-Oels, Howells, Bozikis, and AAP A relies on substantially
the same reasoning discussed above with respect to Rejection I. See Final
Act. 4---6. Because the Examiner does not rely on Staats-Oels and/or
Howells to cure the deficiencies of Rejection I, see supra, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 14 as being unpatentable in view of
Staats-Oels, Howells, Bozikis, and AAP A.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 14.
REVERSED
5