Ex Parte Wester et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2018

13867281 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/867,281 04/22/2013
27752 7590 05/08/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian Reber Wester
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-8665 2763
EXAMINER
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 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
Ex parte CHRISTIAN REBER WESTER and
STEPHEN CHARLES WITKUS
Appeal2017-009052 1
Application 13/867,281 2
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 4--13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 9, 2016), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 23, 2017), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 13, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Gillette Company
LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009052
Application 13/867,281
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to shaving
razor cartridges and more particularly to wet shaving cartridges having one
or more blades secured to a cartridge housing and methods of manufacture
thereof." Spec. 1, 11. 4---6.
Br. 8.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A method of manufacturing a wet shaving cartridge
compnsmg:
providing a housing having a guard with a top surface
bowed in an upward direction from a pair of lateral end portions
toward a mid point of the guard, the housing having a center
platform with a top surface and a pair of spaced apart lateral
platforms;
mounting at least one blade in the housing;
bending the blade over the center platform; and
securing the blade to the housing, wherein said securing
biases the blade in an upward direction away from the spaced
apart lateral platforms.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Iten. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iten.
3 Iten, US 4,901,437, iss. Feb. 20, 1990.
2
Appeal2017-009052
Application 13/867,281
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds:
Iten discloses the method including the step of: providing a
housing 22 and 26 having a guard 24 with a top surface bowed
in an upward direction ( see Fig. 8) from a pair of lateral end
portions (see Fig. 4) toward a mid-point of the guard; the housing
having a center platform CP with top surface and a pair of spaced
apart lateral platforms LP; mounting at least one blade 28 in the
housing; and securing the blade to the housing, wherein said
securing biases the blade in an upward direction away from the
spaced apart lateral platforms ( where the curvature of the
platforms 22 forces the blade away from it due to the geometry
of the blade); a center platform (see Fig. 3); biasing the blade
away from a pair of lateral end platforms of the housing and
against the center platform (see Fig. 12)
Final Act. 2.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's findings by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that "[t]he blade of Iten may be bent against the
center of the cap 26, but because of the continuous surface of Iten, the blade
cannot be bent 'over' the cap 26." Br. 3. Appellants do not provide further
explanation other than to refer to Figure 4 of the present application. Id. We
are not persuaded of error. To the extent Appellants refer to the Hen's blade
as not being bent over cap 26, we note that the claim requires bending the
blade over the center platform, and the Examiner has identified the center
portion of platform 22 as the claimed center platform. Thus, the blade's
relation to the cap 26 does not appear to be relevant to the rejection before
us. However, to the extent Appellants are arguing that the blade cannot be
bent over the platform and against the platform, we disagree and find that
3
Appeal2017-009052
Application 13/867,281
Hen's blade may reasonably be said to be both against the center platform
and bent over it. In short, Appellants do not adequately explain how Hen's
configuration in this regard is distinct from that which is claimed as
identified by the Examiner.
Second, Appellants argue that "Hen does not disclose 'securing of the
blade to the housing biases the blade in an updward direction away from the
spaced apart platforms."' Id. at 4. Appellants assert that because Hen's
blade is sandwiched between the platform 22 and cap 26, the blade contacts
the platform 22 including both the center and lateral platforms, and because
the blade contacts the lateral platform, Appellants assert that Hen cannot
reasonably be read as disclosing that the blade is biased away from the
lateral platform. Id. at 4--5. However, we find that this argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Appellants appear to interpret
the claim to require that the blade is not in contact with the lateral platforms.
However, the claim requires only that the blade is biased away from the
lateral platforms. We agree with the Examiner that the blade may be in
contact with the lateral platforms and also be biased away from the lateral
platforms. Moreover, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's finding
that "[t]he act of bending the blade inherently causes it to move away from
the lateral end portions" of element 22 in Hen. Ans. 4. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that the blade is biased away
from the lateral platforms in Hen.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Hen. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 7-13, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments.
4
Appeal2017-009052
Application 13/867,281
Obviousness
Claims 5 and 6 each depend from claim 1 and require that "the top
surface of the center platform is positioned above the plane tangent to the
lateral end platforms by a vertical distance." Br. 8. The Examiner finds:
Iten discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the
top surface of the center platform is positioned above the plane
tangent to the lateral end platforms by a vertical distance of about
0.05mm to about 0.25mm or 0.1mm to about 0.25mm. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified the device of Iten
by providing the above limitations for the purpose of improving
the shaving geometry, since it has been held that where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum value or workable ranges involves only
routine skill in the art.
Final Act. 3--4.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in this
rejection by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants argue that the prior art does not recognize the claimed
parameter as a result effective variable. Br. 6. Appellants assert that Hen's
blade is secured and sandwiched between the platform 22 and cap 26 such
that the blade contacts the platform and "[ t ]here is no evidence or suggestion
in the specification that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
this construction that would lead to the configuration of biasing the blade
away from the spaced apart platforms." Id. at 6-7. We are not persuaded of
reversible error. To the extent Appellants' argument is based on a
requirement that Hen's blade must be spaced apart from the lateral platforms
in order to be biased away from those platforms, we disagree for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. As for the claimed parameter being
a result effective variable, , the Examiner explains
5
Appeal2017-009052
Application 13/867,281
Ite[ n] does recognize a result-effect variable of bending the
blades to provide a cutting blade that assumes a curved, convex
configuration for shaving concave portions of the user's body
maintaining precise lateral alignment, i.e., improving the shaving
geometry of the device (see Ite[n], col. 2, lines 43-47). Since the
general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to have modified the curvature of the blades, as taught by Iten,
through routine experimentation to discover the optimum
workable ranges to effect the best shaving geometry for shaving
curved portions of the body.
Ans. 4--5. Appellants do not challenge this explanation and we find it is
supported by the record. See, e.g., Iten col. 2, 11. 42--47.
Finally, Appellants argue that "none of the cited references teach or
suggest any of the advantages provided by the claimed invention." Br. 7.
However, to the extent any of the purported advantages of Appellants'
invention are embodied in structural elements of the claims, Appellants have
not adequately addressed why these advantages would not likewise be
embodied in Hen's structure when it is modified as proposed by the
Examiner.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Iten. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of those claims.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1 and 4--13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6