Ex Parte Wester et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201813867281 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation