SHAVELOGIC, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15324245 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
15/324,245 01/05/2017 John W. Griffin 0017-050US1 2283
16404 7590 11/03/2020
Leber IP Law
400 TradeCenter
Suite 5900
Woburn, MA 01801
EXAMINER
CROSBY JR, RICHARD D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
admin@leberiplaw.com
celia@leberiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOHN W. GRIFFIN,
WILLIAM E. TUCKER, CRAIG A. PROVOST, and
DOUGLAS R. KOHRING
__________

Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–14, and 18–25. Claims 2, 3, and
15–17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ShaveLogic,
Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal. Br.”) 1, filed June 18, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “razor cartridges (also known as
blade units), and to shaving assemblies that include such cartridges.” Spec.
p. 2.2
Claims 1 and 14 are independent.3 Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A razor cartridge, comprising:
a frame defining a base, said frame having an opening
defined in part by a composite guard having a leading guard
surface and a cap having a trailing cap surface, said leading guard
surface and said trailing cap surface cooperating to define a
contact plane tangential thereto and extending across said
opening; and
at least three razor blades attached to said base, said razor
blades being fixedly spaced;
wherein the cutting edge of the razor blade closest to the
leading guard surface has a cutting edge exposure relative to said
contact plane that is positive;
wherein the cutting edge exposures of the other razor
blades become less positive from said leading composite guard[4]
to said cap; and
wherein said composite guard includes an elastomeric
guard bar having a skin contacting surface, and a rigid guard bar

2 We refer to the page numbers because neither the lines on each page of the
Specification nor the paragraphs thereof are not enumerated.
3 We note that in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, claim 4 recites
“The razor cartridge of Claim 3”; however, claim 3 has been canceled. See
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
4 We note that the recited term “said leading composite guard” is somewhat
confusing because elsewhere in the claim, “a composite guard” and “a
leading guard surface” are recited. However, we do not find that this
confusion rises to the level of indefiniteness. Nonetheless, we note that
clarification could be achieved by changing this term to “said composite
guard.”
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

3
support defining said leading guard surface, wherein the rigid
guard bar support is disposed between the elastomeric guard bar
and the cutting edge of the razor blade closest to the leading
guard surface, and the skin contacting surface of the elastomeric
guard bar is higher, relative to a base of the composite guard,
than an exposed uppermost surface of the rigid guard bar support.

THE REJECTION5
Claims 1, 4–14, and 18–256 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Walker ’342 (US 6,651,342 B1, issued Nov. 25, 2003)
and Walker ’339 (US 8,448,339 B2, issued May 28, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites the following enumerated limitations,
which we shall referred to hereinafter: (1) “said leading guard surface and
said trailing cap surface cooperating to define a contact plane tangential
thereto and extending across said opening”; (2) “wherein the cutting edge of
the razor blade closest to the leading guard surface has a cutting edge
exposure relative to said contact plane that is positive”; (3) “wherein the
cutting edge exposures of the other razor blades become less positive from
said leading composite guard to said cap”; and (4) “a rigid guard bar support

5 We note that in the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) dated Mar. 7, 2019, it is
indicated that the proposed amendments of the Reply filed Jan. 31, 2019
“will be entered.” Adv. Act. 1. However, there were no proposed
amendments in the Reply of Jan. 31, 2019. See also Appeal Br. 1
(indicating that “[n]o amendments have been made subsequent to the
response filed to the Final Office Action of October 17, 2018”).
6 In the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Oct. 17, 2018, the
Examiner lists in paragraph 3 claims 1, 6–9, 12–21, 24, and 25 as being
rejected. Final Act. 2. However, claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 22, and 23 are
discussed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 6–7. Further, claims
15–17 have been canceled in the Amendment filed June 14, 2018.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

4
defining said leading guard surface, wherein the rigid guard bar support is
disposed between [an] elastomeric guard bar and the cutting edge of the
razor blade closest to the leading guard surface.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims
App., emphases added). Independent claim 14 recites similar limitations.
Id. at 10–11.
The Specification discloses “[t]he cutting edge of each razor blade is
positioned adjacent a plane that tangentially intersects the contact surfaces
of the guard and the cap. This plane, referred to as the ‘contact plane,’
represents the theoretical position of the surface being shaved.” Spec. p. 1;
emphases added. “A cutting edge with ‘positive exposure’ is one that
extends through the contact plane and into the area normally occupied by
the object being shaved.” Id.; emphasis added.
Figure 5 of the subject application is reproduced below.

Figure 5 discloses a razor cartridge having a trailing cap surface 13 and a
leading guard surface 11 of a rigid guard bar support (not identified by a
reference number in Figure 5 but identified in Figures 2–3 as reference
number 21). Spec. p. 4. Figure 5A of the subject application is reproduced
below.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

5

Figure 5A shows a plane Pc that is “defined [] between” the leading guard
surface 11 and trailing cap surface 13 in which the blades “are positioned
relative to each other and relative to the cutting plane discussed in the
Background section” of the Specification. Spec. p. 5.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Walker ’342
discloses “the cutting edge of the razor blade closest to the leading guard
surface has a cutting edge exposure relative to said contact plane that is
positive (Figure 3),” i.e., limitation (2). Final Act. 2–3. However, in the
Answer and in response to Appellant’s contention that Walker ’342 fails to
disclose this limitation, the Examiner states that “[t]he Examiner never relied
on the contact plane in Walker ’342, as identified by Appellant.” Ans. 9.7
Thus, it appears the Examiner acknowledges that Walker ’342 does not
disclose limitation (2).8 Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Walker [’]339 teaches [that] it is old and well known in the art of
razor to incorporate a cutting edge (21b), wherein the cutting
edge exposures of other razor blades (21c, 21a) become less
positive from said leading composite guard (20) to said cap (22)
(Figure 5A; Tip 21b is positive, above the contact plane, tip 21c
is on the contact plane ([6]0) and tip 21a is below the contact

7 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Oct. 3, 2019.
8 If this is not the case, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to
explain––and we do not see how it can be said––that Walker ’342’s Figure 3
discloses limitation (2). See Appeal Br. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

6
plane. As such, the two cutting edges 21c and 21a become “less
positive”).
Final Act. 5. In other words, it appears the Examiner finds that Walker ’339
discloses both limitations (2) and (3). The Examiner’s annotated Figure 5A
of Walker ’339 is reproduced below.

See Final Act. 5. Annotated Figure 5A of Walker ’339 shows cap 22, blades
18a–18c, guard 20, cutting edges 21a–21c, upper tangent 60, and an
extended dotted line added by the Examiner extending from the dotted line
of upper tangent 60 to the right of Figure 5A. Walker ’339 6:54–7:17; c.f.
id. at Fig. 5A. Walker ’339 discloses that upper tangent 60 is a line that
identifies the top surface 50 of cap 22 shown in Figure 4 (also shown in
Figure 5A but not identified by reference number). Walker ’339 6:41–43;
see also id. at Fig. 4.
Appellant contends that Walker ’339’s Figure 5A does not disclose a
blade that has a cutting edge with a positive exposure, and thus does not
disclose limitations (2) and (3). Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant’s annotated
Figure 5A of Walker ’339 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

7

See Reply Br. 4.9 Appellant’s annotated Figure 5A of Walker ’339 shows an
added dotted line above the upper tangent 60. Id. Appellant points out that
this added dotted line extends from cap 22 to guard 20 and that the blades
are “below this line.” Id.
For the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant that the
added dotted line in its annotated Figure 5A of Walker ’339 correctly
represents the contact plane, rather than the extended dotted line in the
Examiner’s annotated Figure 5A of Walker ’339.
“[C]laims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification and that claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (citations omitted). First, the claims require and the Specification
clearly defines a contact plane as described above. We do not see how it can
be said, as asserted by the Examiner, that Appellant’s definition of its
“contact plane” would be negated by reciting in the Specification that the
contact plane is a “theoretical position of the surface being shaved.” See
Ans. 10 (citing Spec. p. 1, ll. 5–7) (emphasis omitted). Here, the term

9 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Nov. 27, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

8
“theoretical” is used in the context of describing a plane that contacts the
surface of the skin for shaving, and that does not mean a plane, or the
position of cutting edges of the blades with respect to the plane––as required
by the claims or described by the Specification––cannot exist. See Appeal
Br. 5 (arguing that the claims require a “contact plane tangential” to a
“leading guard surface” and a “trailing cap surface” in which “a rigid guard
bar support defin[es] said leading guard surface” (emphasis omitted)). In
other words, even with the term “theoretical” as recited in the Specification,
that does not give the Examiner an unfettered license to disregard the
claims’ particular requirements for the “contact plane” nor the
Specification’s explicit definition of this term so that the Examiner can
choose any arbitrary plane. We also note that Appellant’s use of the term
“contact plane” is consistent with how the term is used in the art, as
demonstrated by the three references cited in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br.
5.10
Further, as explained above, Walker ’339 describes upper tangent 60
as a line that identifies a top surface 50 of cap 22, shown in Figure 4––rather
than one that represents a contact plane. Walker ’339 6:41–43. It appears
this line is drawn to show that point 60 is above blade plane P1, which is
perpendicular to front edge 52. See id. at 6:41–45. In other words, upper
tangent 60 is not drawn to identify a corresponding contact plane. This is
even more evident by the fact that the extension of the upper tangent 60 line
to the right in Figure 5A of Walker ’339 by the Examiner shows a line that is

10 Coffin (US 2003/0217469 A1, published Nov. 27, 2003); Coffin (US
2008/0034593 A1, published Feb. 14, 2008); Coffin (WO 2004/076137 A1,
published Sept. 10, 2004).
Appeal 2020-001179
Application 15/324,245

9
not tangential to the trailing surface of cap 20, i.e., the line falls below the
top surface of cap 20. Lacking any reasoning from the Examiner for the
extension of that line, the Examiner’s annotation is more than likely
arbitrary and drawn solely for the purpose of satisfying the claim
limitations. In contrast, the top dotted line in Appellant’s annotated Figure
5A of Walker ’339 shows that its line is tangential to the trailing surface of
cap 20, i.e., at the top surface of cap 20, such that this line correctly
represents the contact plane. As such, Appellant’s annotated Figure 5A of
Walker ’339 shows that none of the blades’ cutting edges have positive
exposure with respect to its contact plane. Accordingly, Walker ’339 does
not disclose a razor cartridge meeting limitations (2) and (3) as enumerated
above.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence does not
support the Examiner’s determination that claims 1, 4–14, and 18–25 are
unpatentable over Walker ’342 and Walker ’339. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–14, 18–
25
103 Walker ’342,
Walker ’339
1, 4–14, 18–
25

REVERSED