15922120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2020)

The Gillette Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 9, 2020

15922120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 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. 15/922,120 03/15/2018 Sushant Trivedi 14077D 1543 27752 7590 10/09/2020 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER CROSBY JR, RICHARD D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/09/2020 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): centraldocket.im@pg.com mayer.jk@pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SUSHANT TRIVEDI and JACQUELINE AMOS GAGAS Appeal 2020-002676 Application 15/922,120 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 The Gillette Company LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002676 Application 15/922,120 2 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to a method for the selection of a shaving product.” Spec. 1, l. 5. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 1. A system of shaving products, the system comprising: a first razor handle, the first razor handle being enclosed in a first single use disposable blister package, the first single use disposable blister package enclosing only the first razor handle; the first razor handle is configured to provide heating during use, the first razor handle being connectable in use with a designated razor blade cartridge; a second razor handle, the second razor handle being enclosed in a second single use disposable blister package, the second single use disposable blister package enclosing only the second razor handle; the second razor handle is configured to provide dispensing of fluid during use, the second razor handle being connectable in use with the designated razor blade cartridge. Appeal Br. 4. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iten2 in view of Szczepanowski.3 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Iten teaches a system of shaving products including a first razor handle enclosed in a single use blister package and connectable to a designated razor blade cartridge. Final 2 Iten, US 3,970,194, iss. July 20, 1976. 3 Szczepanowski et al., US 2007/0084058 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2007. Appeal 2020-002676 Application 15/922,120 3 Act. 2–3 (citing Iten Figs. 1, 2, 5; col. 2, ll. 38–66). The Examiner acknowledges that Iten does not disclose a second razor handle in a second packages, but the Examiner determines that providing such would have been obvious as a mere duplication of parts that would provide a plurality of replacement parts to the user. Id. at 3. The Examiner further acknowledges that Iten does not teach a first handle that provides heating during use or a second handle that provides dispensing of fluid during use. Id. The Examiner finds that Szczepanowski teaches a razor handle that provides heating and dispensing of fluid during use, and that providing heated fluid during use provides for a more comfortable shave. Id. at 4 (citing Szczepanowski ¶¶ 2, 19, 21). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Iten to include razor handles that provide for heating and dispensing fluid as taught by Szczepanowski in order to provide the user with a more comfortable shave. Id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and determinations with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans.4 5–7. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant first argues that the combination proposed would not result in the invention of claim 1. Appeal Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant asserts: “[w]hat the combination . . . misses and fails to address is that the handle of Iten and the handle of Szczepanowski would each need to be able to connect 4 Second or Subsequent Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief, mailed Dec. 18, 2019. Appeal 2020-002676 Application 15/922,120 4 to the same razor cartridge,” and that “[e]ach [reference] contemplate[s] only connecting their respective handle with their respective razor cartridge.” Id. at 2–3. We are not persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 5–6. Specifically, the Examiner makes clear that the rejection relies on a modification of Iten’s handle to include the heating and dispensing fluid functionality taught by Szczepanowski and that the razor cartridges of Szczepanowski are not utilized in the combination. Id. at 6. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that this argument fails to explain any specific deficiency in the rejection before us. Id. Appellant also argues that the prior art does not “contemplate the concept or provide a motivation of having two unique handles providing two distinct benefits and each handle being able to connect with the same razor cartridge no matter how they are packaged.” Appeal Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error. As the Examiner notes, as presently worded, claim 1 does not require the first and second handles to provide distinct benefits. Ans. 6. Rather, the claim merely requires that the first handle provide heating and the second handle provide dispensing of fluid. The claim language neither precludes both handles from providing both of these functions nor otherwise requires the handles to have different functionality. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim reads on the proposed combination in which two handles are provided, both with heating and fluid dispensing capabilities. See id. at 7. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. We are also not persuaded of any error in the rejection of the dependent claims, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5–8. Appeal 2020-002676 Application 15/922,120 5 DECISION SUMMARY We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 5–8. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–8 103 Iten, Szczepanowski 1, 5–8 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