Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2013

11521819 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MING LAURA XU
____________________

Appeal 2010-005368
Application 11/521,819
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005368
Application 11/521,819

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to blade supports for use in shaving systems.
Spec. 1:3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A supported blade for use in a shaving system, the supported
blade comprising:
a blade having a sharpened edge and a planar portion; and
a blade support having an upper surface and a lower surface,
the planar portion of the blade being mounted to a surface of
the upper surface of the blade support, and the blade support
having a coating on a portion of an outer surface of the blade
support wherein said coating consists essentially of aluminum.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamada US 5,857,260 Jan. 12, 1999
Skrobis
Van Eibergen Santhagens
US 2005/0268470 A1
US 2007/0124939 A1
Dec. 8, 2005
Jun. 7, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skrobis, Van Eibergen Santhagens (hereafter
“Santhagens”), and Yamada.
Appeal 2010-005368
Application 11/521,819

3
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Santhagens and Yamada.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Skrobis, Santhagens, and Yamada
Addressing claims 1-6, the Examiner determines that “it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Skrobis’ blade
support, with the aluminum coating, as taught by Yamada, in order to reduce
wear and improve corrosion resistance of the blade support, as taught by
Santhagens.” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that “the outer surface of the
blade support 8 [of bent blade 4 of Santhagens] which supports the blade 6 is
coated by coatings that reduce wear and improve corrosion resistance.”
Ans. 3-4. Appellant contends that “the Examiner is equating a portion of
Santhagens’ bent blade 4 as being a blade support. Additionally, the
Examiner redefines the Santhagens blade area as being only an upper area of
bent blade 4.” App. Br. 5. Appellant further contends that
one of ordinary skill in the razor arts would not equate a bent
blade with a blade having a blade support mounted thereon.
Furthermore, the Office does not point to a location in the
Santhagens specification where Santhagens discloses that the
“blades” and “blade supports” are actually two separate
elements that are “mounted” together as recited in Appellant’s
Claim 1.
Id.
The Examiner responds that “the blade and blade supports are two
parts that are integrated to form a single piece unit. As stated above, the two
parts are integrally mounted together. This means the blade and the blade
support as two parts are mounted together by molecular bounding or
Appeal 2010-005368
Application 11/521,819

4
adhesion.” Ans. 9. It is unclear as to the meaning of “integrally mounted
together” and the Examiner makes no finding that the blade is mounted to an
upper surface of the support. Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has failed to establish that the portion 8 of the
blade 4 is a “blade support” with “the blade being mounted to a surface of
the upper surface of the blade support” as required by claim 1. As such, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 over Skrobis,
Santhagens, and Yamada.

Obviousness over Santhagens and Yamada
The Examiner finds that “Santhagens also teaches a blade support 4a
having an outer surface 8a and a lower surface 8b.” Ans. 4. For the same
reasons stated above, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
portion 8 of the blade 4 is a blade support as called for in claim 1. As such,
we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 over Santhagens
and Yamada.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls