Ex Parte Szczepanowski et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2011

10956752 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2011)

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.
10/956,752 10/01/2004 Andrew A. Szczepanowski 8152 7129
27752 7590 04/29/2011
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LEE, LAURA MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2011 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 ANDREW A. SZCZEPANOWSKI and ROBERT A. TROTTA
____________

Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
PHIL J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andrew A. Szczepanowski and Robert A. Trotta (Appellants) seek
our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3-22, 27-31, 47, and 53. Claim 54 is withdrawn from
consideration. Claims 2, 23-26, 32-46, and 48-52 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to shaving razors and razor
cartridges, and more particularly to razors for wet shaving.” (Spec. 1:2-3.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A razor comprising:
a handle,
a head, mounted on said handle, said head including a
housing that is positioned to contact the user's skin during
shaving and that carries one or more blades configured for wet
shaving, said housing being comprised of a plastic material, said
housing comprising a guard,
said guard being positioned between said blades and said
handle, and
an electrical circuit including a region of relatively higher
resistance embedded within said plastic material under said
guard, said region of relatively higher resistance delivering heat
directly to said plastic material.

Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1

1. Rejection of claims 1 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Guimont (US 2003/0154832 A1; published Aug. 21, 2003).
2. Rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guimont and Patrick (US 2003/0226258 A1; published
Dec. 11, 2003).
3. Rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guimont, Patrick, and Garets (FR 2716402 A1; published
Aug. 28, 1995).
4. Rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guimont, Patrick, Garets, and Toyoda (US 6,175,152 B1;
issued Jan. 16, 2001).
5. Rejection of claims 1, 9-11, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iderosa (US 5,065,515; issued Nov. 19, 1991),
Andrews (US 5,522,137; issued June 4, 1996), Brandt (US 6,868,610 B2;
issued Mar. 22, 2005), and Kozikowski (US 5,394,777; issued Mar. 7,
1995).
6. Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, Kozikowski, and Kanzer (US 2003/0046816
A1; published Mar. 13, 2003).

1
To facilitate our review, these rejections are presented in a different order
from that in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

4
7. Rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, Kozikowski, and Patrick.
8. Rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, Kozikowski, Patrick, and
Kanzer.
9. Rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, Kozikowski, and Patrick.
10. Rejection of claims 14-22 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, and Kozikowski.

CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES
Each of the first four rejections is based in part on the Examiner’s
finding that Guimont discloses the claimed heating component (an electrical
circuit or a heating element). (Ans. 4-5.) Appellants argue that Guimont’s
heating element 65 does not deliver heat directly to the plastic material, as
called for in independent claims 1 and 47. (App. Br. 4-5.)
The first issue before us is whether Guimont discloses a heating
component that delivers heat directly to the plastic material, as called for in
independent claims 1 and 47.
The remaining rejections are based in part on Iderosa. Regarding the
fifth rejection, Appellants argue claims 1, 9-11, and 47 as a group. (App. Br.
5-6.) We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 9-11 and 47
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

5
The Examiner’s finding that Iderosa discloses the claimed electrical
circuit having a region of relatively higher resistance, is based upon the
interpretation that claim 1 calls for only some portion of the region of
relatively higher resistance to be embedded within the plastic material of the
housing under the guard, delivering heat directly to the plastic material.
(Ans. 5, 19-20.) Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding is in error
because Iderosa’s heating element 15 is not embedded under the guard as
called for in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2.)
The second issue before us is whether independent claim 1 calls for
the entire heating component, or only a portion, to be within the plastic
material of the housing under the guard delivering heat directly to the plastic
material. The remaining rejections turn on this same issue.

ANALYSIS
Rejections involving Guimont
Independent claim 1 is directed to a razor, and similarly, independent
claim 47 is directed to a razor cartridge. Claims 1 and 47 each call for a
head having a housing comprised of a plastic material that includes a guard.
Claims 1 and 47 further comprise a heating component
2
embedded within
the plastic material under the guard, delivering heat directly to the plastic
material. Thus, claims 1 and 47 require a heating component that delivers
heat directly to the plastic material of the housing, under the guard.

2
Claim 1 recites “an electrical circuit including a region of relatively higher
resistance,” and claim 47 recites a “heating element.”
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

6
The Examiner contends that Guimont’s heating element 85 directly
heats: (1) the housing surrounding the shaving aid [reservoir 62], (2) ledge
61, and (3) any surface that contacts a surface that is directly heated. (Ans.
18.) Appellants contend that Guimont’s heating element 65 does not
provide direct heating to the plastic material of the housing as called for in
independent claims 1 and 47. (App. Br. 5.)
Guimont’s shaving aid delivery system 60 includes a heating element
65 disposed within reservoir 62, which may be positioned on ledge 61 within
razor head 12. (Guimont 2, para. [0024]; 3, paras. [0032]-[0033]; 5, para.
[0060]; figs. 1, 2A.) Guimont discloses that ledge 61 may be a bracket, pin,
or tab. (Guimont 5, para. [0032].) Guimont discloses that shaving aid
delivery system 60 may also be disposed under guard member 40. (Guimont
5, para. [0060]; fig. 2A.) Guimont discloses that heating element 65 heats
shaving aid 300 so that shaving aid 300 issues from reservoir 62 via nozzle
68 onto lubricating strip 64. (Guimont 3, para. [0033]; fig. 2A.) Guimont
does not disclose that shaving aid delivery system 60 is integrally formed
with razor head 12, nor does Guimont disclose that reservoir 62 of shaving
aid delivery system 60 is comprised of plastic.
Given this, Guimont’s heating element 65 is described as directly
heating reservoir 62 and ledge 61; however, reservoir 62 and ledge 61 are
not disclosed as being part of the plastic material of the housing (razor head
12). Consequently, Guimont’s heating component (heating element 65) does
not deliver heat directly to the plastic material of the housing (razor head
12), as in independent claims 1 and 47.
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

7
The Examiner’s determination that independent claims 1 and 47 are
anticipated by Guimont (rejection 1) is in error because it is based upon an
erroneous finding of fact. Further, the rejections of claims 27-31 (rejections
2-4), which rely upon the same erroneous finding of fact, are also in error.
3

Rejections involving Iderosa
Rejection 5: Claims 1, 9-11, and 47
Appellants argue that Iderosa’s heating element 15 extends outward
from the guard such that it can directly heat the hairs and the stratum
corneum of the skin to be shaved, while claim 1 requires “there be guard
material over the region of relatively higher resistance and the heating
element such that they are embedded.” (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2.)
Independent claim 1 is directed to a razor comprising: a handle; one or
more blades; a head that includes a housing of plastic material having a
guard that is positioned between the blades and the handle; and, an electrical
circuit having a region of relatively higher resistance “embedded within said
plastic material under said guard.” Claim 1 does not recite that the entire
region of relatively higher resistance must be embedded within the plastic
material of the housing, under the guard.

3
We hold that Guimont does not disclose each limitation of independent
claims 1 and 47 in that Guimont’s heating element 65 does not directly heat
the plastic material of the housing. Because claims 1 and 47 call for the
heating component to be embedded within the plastic material of the
housing so that it directly heats the plastic material, the Examiner’s finding
is also in error in that Guimont’s heating element 65 is not so embedded.
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

8
Appellants’ Specification does not provide a lexicographical
definition of “embedded,” but describes that the electrical circuit includes a
“relatively high resistance area 34 (e.g., a resistor) embedded in the plastic
housing 18, to provide heating and that area of the housing. Generally, this
higher resistance area is provided under the guard, as shown. It may,
however, be provided in any desired area of the housing 18.” (Spec. 5:8-11;
fig. 2.) We cannot find, nor do Appellants point to (App. Br. 2), any
requirement for the entire region of relatively higher resistance being
embedded within the plastic material of the housing.
The Examiner contends that “embedded” is commonly understood to
mean: “(1) to fix firmly in a surrounding mass; embed a post in concret
[sic].; (2) to enclose snuggly or firmly; (3) to cause to be an integral part of a
surrounding whole.” (Ans. 16 (citing to American Heritage College
Dictionary).) In their arguments against the rejections based in part on
Guimont, Appellants relied upon these definitions for support. (Reply Br.
1.) We cannot find, nor have Appellants explained, how these definitions
support an assertion that the entire region of relatively higher resistance of
the electrical circuit must be embedded within the plastic material of the
housing, under the guard.
Giving claim 1 the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, we interpret the term “embedded” to mean that at
least some portion of the region of relatively higher resistance of the
electrical circuit is surrounded by the plastic material of the housing, under
the guard, but not the entire region. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

9
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (It is Appellants’ burden to “precisely define the
invention.”). Although there are specific embodiments in the Specification
directed to a region entirely surrounded by plastic material, we do not read
limitations from the Specification into the claims, absent a reason to do so.
Here, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence that the term
“embedded” would be read so narrowly by the ordinary skilled worker when
read in light of the Specification. Appellants always have the opportunity to
amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the
examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
Appellants also argue that Iderosa’s heating element is not positioned
between the blades and the handle, under the guard. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply
Br. 2.) This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner found that Iderosa
does not disclose a guard positioned between the handles and the blades
because Iderosa’s handle extends in a direction opposite to the cutting
direction. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to reverse the handle so that the guard would be positioned between
the blades and the handle as called for in independent claims 1 and 47
because it was well known in the art that handles may extend in or opposite
to the direction of cutting. (Id.)
Consequently, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 9-11 and 47 fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

10
Rejections 6-10
The remaining rejections (6-10) also rely upon the Examiner’s finding
that Iderosa discloses an electrical circuit having a region of relatively higher
resistance embedded within the plastic material of the housing, under the
guard. Appellants repeat the arguments used against the previous rejection.
(App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-2.) For the reasons explained in the analysis to
the fifth rejection, supra, those arguments are unconvincing here as well.

CONCLUSION
Guimont does not disclose a heating component (an electrical circuit
or a heating element) that is embedded within the plastic material, under the
guard, as called for in independent claims 1 and 47.
Independent claim 1 calls for some portion of the heating component
to be embedded within the plastic material of the housing, under the guard.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 47 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Guimont.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guimont and Patrick.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guimont, Patrick, and Garets.
Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

11
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guimont, Patrick, Garets, and
Toyoda.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 9-11, and 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews,
Brandt, and Kozikowski.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt, Kozikowski,
and Kanzer.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt,
Kozikowski, and Patrick.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt,
Kozikowski, Patrick, and Kanzer.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews, Brandt,
Kozikowski, and Patrick.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14-22 and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iderosa, Andrews,
Brandt, and Kozikowski.

Appeal 2009-012385
Application 10/956,752

12
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

bim/nlk