Ex Parte Walker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2011

10799037 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte VINCENT P. WALKER
____________________

Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and FRED A.
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Vincent P. Walker (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-14, 20-24, 26, and 27. Claims 15-17
and 25 have been canceled. Claims 18 and 19 have been objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but have been indicated as
allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A shaving cartridge comprising:
a blade unit comprising a housing having a front edge
and a rear edge; and
one or more shaving blades between the front edge and
the rear edge; and
a connecting member pivotally connected to the housing,
the housing and connecting member defining opposing stop
surfaces for limiting rotation of the blade unit relative to the
connecting member;
wherein a normal pivot angle is defined by the opposed
stop surfaces;
the connecting member having a load-bearing surface
arranged and configured to contact the housing only when the
housing is pivoted beyond a limit angle that is greater than the
normal pivot angle.

Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-6, 11, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Apprille (US 5,813,293, issued Sept. 29,
1998);
2. Claims 1, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Coffin (US 6,442,850 B1, issued Sept. 3, 2002);
3. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin;
4. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Apprille;
5. Claims 12-14, 22, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apprille and Rozenkranc (US 6,276,061
B1, issued Aug. 21, 2001); and
6. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Apprille and Rozenkranc.

OPINION
1. Claims 1-6, 11, 24, and 26 are rejected as being anticipated by
Apprille
In the invention of independent claim 1, the housing and connecting
member define opposing stop surfaces for limiting rotation of the blade unit
and the opposed stop surfaces define “a normal pivot angle.” The claim also
calls for the connecting member to have a load-bearing surface to contact the
housing only when the housing is pivoted beyond a “limit angle” which is
greater than the normal pivot angle. Independent claim 24 contains the same
Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

4
or similar limitations. Appellant explains that the purpose of the opposed
stop surfaces is to inhibit rotation during normal usage whereas the load-
bearing surface serves a stop during over-rotation such as when the razor is
dropped. Spec. 15.
The Examiner found that Apprille’s “normal pivot angle” is zero
degrees (the position of the housing when the razor is not in use, which is
the majority of the time) and that the limit angle is any angular value beyond
zero degrees up to the point of rotation just before the housing is stopped at
the other extreme of rotation. Ans. 4-5, 10. Thus, the Examiner maintains,
Apprille’s device satisfies the requirement of a load-bearing surface that
contacts only when the housing is pivoted beyond the limit angle. Id. at 5.
Appellant implicitly contends that the claims, when read in light of the
Specification, require two pairs of opposed stop surfaces and asserts that the
normal pivot angle refers to the range of normal rotation, not a single
angular value. App. Br. 5-6, 7-8. The Examiner concluded that claim 1
does not, as Appellant urges, recite two pairs of opposed stop surfaces. Ans.
10-11. The Examiner maintains that the claims only require one pair of
opposed surfaces (i.e. one on a stationary component and a mating one on a
rotating component) and that the single pair defines a single angular value
(in this case zero degrees). Id.
The Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed “normal pivot angle” can
be zero degrees is inconsistent with the Specification’s description of the
claimed invention. The Specification distinguishes the “rest position being
zero degrees” from the normal rotation of the blade unit (angle γ). Spec.
15:8-14, fig. 40 (depicting normal rotation angle γ and the angle ω which is
greater than γ and where the load bearing surface contacts the housing).
Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

5
Accordingly, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the
claims in light of the Specification would not agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the rest position of zero degrees is the normal pivot angle.
As such, the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad. We cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 and their respective
dependent claims 2-6, 11, and 26 as being anticipated by Apprille.

2. Claims 1, 24, and 26 are rejected as being anticipated by Coffin
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. App. Br. 8-11. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 24 and 26 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner offers two explanations as to how Coffin satisfies the
limitations of claim 1. Ans. 6-7, 11-12. We focus on the second explanation
(Figs. F and G at Ans. 7), and need not address the first.
The Examiner finds that Coffin’s slider 25 together with sub-seat 14
constitutes the claimed connecting member and that blade cartridge 1
corresponds to the housing. Ans. 6; see Coffin, col. 5, ll. 18, 45-46. As
depicted in the Examiner’s annotated figures, when the cartridge 1 is in the
biased, fully counterclockwise position, there are stop surfaces on opposing
areas of the cartridge 1 and sub-seat 14 that are in contact with each other.
Ans. 7, Figs. F & G; see Coffin, col. 5, ll. 33-36, fig. 6. Then, when force is
applied (i.e. during shaving), the cartridge 1 can rotate clockwise until its
underside contacts another portion of sub-seat 14 – at a second set of stop
surfaces. See Ans. 7, Figs. F & G (identifying two sets of stop surfaces).
The Examiner identifies this range of movement between these stop surfaces
as the normal pivot angle. Id. at 7. Upon continued application of force, the
Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

6
cartridge 1 continues to pivot until it contacts (either directly or through the
sub-seat 14) the slider 25 at the maximum applied shaving force. See Ans.
7, Fig. 7; Coffin, col. 5, ll. 45-60, fig. 7. The Examiner finds that “[a] load
bearing surface (Figure G) on the connecting member contacts the housing
after the housing is pivoted beyond a limit angle (A).” Ans. 7. We
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments but do not find them
persuasive. App. Br. 8-11. As to the argument that Coffin’s housing
(cartridge 1) contacts the slider at, rather than beyond, a limit angle, we
agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not sufficiently defined “limit
angle” so as to distinguish the reference. See Ans. 10 (discussing the term in
the context of Apprille). The term “limit angle” is merely the label given to
some angle greater than the normal pivot angle but less than the angle at
which the housing contacts the load-bearing surface. Coffin’s device
operates in a manner similar to that described in Appellant’s Specification
(Spec., 15, ll. 15-22; rotation ceases when the housing contacts the load-
bearing surface of connecting member), so we fail to see how Coffin lacks
the recited stops or load-bearing surface which directly or indirectly define
the normal pivot angle and the limit angle. We affirm the rejection of claims
1, 24, and 26 as anticipated by Coffin.

3. Claims 7-10 are rejected as being unpatentable over Coffin
For this rejection, Appellant does not offer any separate arguments but
merely relies on the unpersuasive arguments made for the second rejection.
Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

7
App. Br. 11-12. As such, we affirm the rejection of claims 7-10 as obvious
in light of Coffin.

4. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as being unpatentable over Apprille
In this rejection of claims 9 and 10, the Examiner relies on the above-
discussed deficient application of Apprille in the context of the anticipation
rejection, and maintains that the claimed normal pivot angle (41 and 41.5 to
45 degrees, respectively) would have been an obvious matter of optimized
design choice. Ans. 8-9. However, the Examiner does not adequately
explain why this would be so, particularly where the Examiner found that
Apprille’s normal pivot angle was zero degrees and a greater angle
corresponds to the limit angle. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9
and 10 as obvious in light of Apprille.

5. Claims 12-14, 22, 23, and 27 are rejected as being unpatentable over
Apprille and Rozenkranc, and
6. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected as being unpatentable over Apprille
and Rozenkranc
The claims subject to the fifth and sixth rejections pertain to the
additional structure of a trimming blade and, in the case of claims 20 and 21,
the specific pivot angle. Independent claim 14, the only independent claim
in these groups, contains recitations of a normal pivot angle and a limit angle
as in claim 1 discussed above in the context of the first rejection. In these
fifth and sixth rejections, the Examiner relies on the above-discussed
application of Apprille in the context of the anticipation rejection. Ans. 9.
The Examiner relies on Rozenkranc for the teaching of a trimming blade, but
Appeal 2009-009155
Application 10/799,037

8
does not rely on Rozenkranc in any manner that cures the deficiency of the
underlying rejection based on Apprille. Regarding claims 20 and 21, the
Examiner again maintains that the claimed normal pivot angle (41 and 41.5
to 45 degrees, respectively) would have been an obvious matter of optimized
design choice but does not adequately explain why that would be so. As
such, we also reverse the rejection of claims 12-14, 20-22, 23, and 27 as
being unpatentable over Apprille and Rozenkranc.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-6, 11-14, 20-23, and
27 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 7-10, 24,
and 26 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls