Ex Parte Petricca

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 2, 2009

11054326 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 2, 2009)

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.
11/054,326 02/09/2005 John D. Petricca 8055C /Z-03758C2 5814
27752 7590 09/02/2009
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
BUI, LUAN KIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3728
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2009 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 JOHN D. PETRICCA
__________

Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: September 2, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
package. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 79-89, 93, and 95-97 are rejected and on appeal (App. Br. 2).
Claims 90-92, 94, and 98 are also pending but are not subject to a rejection
(Final Rej. 1). We will focus on claim 79, which reads as follows:
Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

2
79. A package comprising
a formed plastic container defining a storage region defined by side
walls extending upward from a lower region, said container having an
entrance to said storage region,
a shaving cartridge in said storage region in position for connection to
a handle, said cartridge including a plastic housing and a plurality of blades,
and
wherein said container has a surface defining a rim around said
entrance to said storage region,
wherein said side walls include opposing side walls, and said
container has a ramp structure connecting said rim to a said side wall and
leading to said cartridge in said region, and
further comprising at least one support member on said lower region
supporting said cartridge in a desired orientation, and retaining structure
protruding inward from said opposing side walls retaining said shaving
cartridge in a desired position in said container relative said support
member.
Claims 79-84, 87, 93, and 96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Kohring (US 5,518,114, May 21, 1996) (Ans. 3).
Claims 79-84, 87-89, 93, and 96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kohring in view of Petricca (US 6,041,926,
Mar. 28, 2000) (Ans. 4).
Claims 85, 86, 95, and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kohring and Petricca in view of Eaton (US 4,946,038, Aug. 7,
1990) or Yoshida (US D296,191, Jun. 14, 1988) (Ans. 4-5).
ANTICIPATION
The Examiner finds that Kohring discloses a package having all of the
features of claim 79 (Ans. 3). In particular, the Examiner finds that Kohring
“discloses a package (10) comprising a container having a storage
region (28) defined by side walls (12, 15, 16, 21) extending upward from a
lower region/bottom wall (17),” the “container having an entrance to the
Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

3
storage region” (id.). The Examiner also finds that the “container has a
surface defining a rim (top surfaces of the side walls, see Figure 11 . . . )
around the entrance to the storage region,” the “side walls includ[ing]
opposing side walls and the container ha[ving] a ramp structure (38, see
Figure 11 . . . ) connecting the rim to a side wall and leading to the cartridge
in the storage region” (id.).
Appellant contends that “Kohring fails to teach or suggest a ramp
structure connecting the rim to a side wall” (App. Br. 3). In particular,
Appellant argues:
The spacers and guide members (38, 39, 43) of Kohring simply
project inwardly from the side wall and do not provide a
connection between the rim and side wall. The side walls of
Kohring are directly connected to the rim. There is no
intervening ramp structure that connects the rim to the side
walls. There is no connecting member between the rim and the
side walls of Kohring as they do not need a member to connect
them since they are already connected to one another.
(Id.)
Issue
Has the Examiner erred in concluding that Kohring discloses a
container having a ramp structure connecting the rim to the side wall?
Findings of Fact
1. Kohring discloses a “receptacle 10 for retaining and dispensing
a plurality of razor blade cartridges . . . compris[ing] a pair of opposed end
walls 12 and 14, a pair of opposed side walls 15 and 16, . . . a bottom
wall 17[, and] . . . a plurality of separating walls 18, 19, 20 and 21
extend[ing] between the opposed side walls 15 and 16,” forming a plurality
of cavities 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 (Kohring, col. 2, l. 67, to col. 3, l. 7).
Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

4
2. Kohring Figure 11 is reproduced below:

Kohring Figure 11 depicts a cross-sectional view of receptacle 10 showing a
blade cartridge held in a cavity of the receptacle (id. at col. 2, ll. 55-57).
3. As depicted in Kohring Figure 11, Kohring also discloses
spacer elements 38 and 39 formed on side walls 15 and 16, respectively, and
extending inwardly into the cavities (id. at col. 3, ll. 33-35).
4. Kohring Figure 1, modified to include an arrow pointed at a
spacer element 38, is reproduced below:

Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

5
Kohring Figure 1 is a front top perspective view of the receptacle shown in
Figure 11 (id. at col. 2, ll. 26-30). Although not designated as elements 38
in this figure, Figure 1 clearly shows spacer elements 38 as ramp structures
that extend inwardly from the side wall 15 into the cavities (id. at Fig. 1; see
also Fig. 2, where spacer elements 38 are designated).
Principles of Law
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Analysis
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Kohring discloses a container
defining a storage region 28 defined by side walls 12, 15, 16, and 21 and
having a surface defining a rim around the entrance to storage region 28
(Findings of Fact (FF) 1 & 4). Kohring also discloses a ramp structure 38
(FF 2-4). In addition, we understand how Kohring Figure 11, viewed alone,
can be misinterpreted to show a relatively thick side wall 15, the middle
portion of which can be considered a ramp structure (FF 1-2). However,
when viewed together with Kohring Figure 1, we agree with Appellant that
ramp structure 38 extends from side wall 15 and does not connect side
wall 15 to a rim around the entrance to storage region 28 (FF 3-4).
Conclusion
The Examiner erred in concluding that Kohring discloses a container
having a ramp structure connecting the rim to the side wall. We therefore
Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

6
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 79 and of claims 80-84, 87, 93,
and 96, which depend from claim 79.
OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 79 is also rejected as obvious over Kohring in view of Petricca
(Ans. 4). In rejecting the claim on this basis, the Examiner states:
To the extent that Applicant disagrees with [the Examiner’s
finding that] Kohring . . . discloses the shaving cartridge
compris[ing] a plastic housing and a plurality of blades,
Petricca . . . shows a package (10) comprising a plastic
container having a storage region (20) containing a shaving
cartridge . . . including a plastic housing and a plurality of
blades.
(Id.) The Examiner does not rely on Petricca for showing a ramp structure
connecting a rim to a side wall, nor does the Examiner explain why such a
ramp structure would have been obvious over Kohring and Petricca (id.).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case that claim 79 and claims 80-84, 87-89, 93, and 96, which depend
from claim 79, would have been obvious. We therefore reverse the
obviousness rejection of these claims.
Claims 85, 86, 95, and 97 are rejected as obvious over Kohring and
Petricca in view of Eaton or Yoshida (Ans. 4-5). Claims 85, 86, 95, and 97
depend from claim 79. The Examiner relies on Kohring and Petricca as
discussed above and relies on Eaton and Yoshida for limitations recited in
dependent claims (id. at 5). The Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure
in Eaton or Yoshida that would make up for the deficiency discussed above
(id.). Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not set forth a
Appeal 2009-003749
Application 11/054,326

7
prima facie case that claims 85, 86, 95, and 97 would have been obvious.
We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of these claims.

REVERSED

lp

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT - IP
SYCAMORE BUILDING - 4TH FLOOR
299 EAST SIXTH STREET
CINCINNATI OH 45202