Ex Parte ClarkeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201612138026 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/138,026 06/12/2008 27752 7590 08/01/2016 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sean Peter Clarke 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-4735 8643 EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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 SEAN PETER CLARKE Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 26-33. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 22, and 31 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A shaving razor comprising: a handle having a proximate end and a distal end wherein said handle comprises a cavity; an adapter neck pivotally joined to said proximate end of said handle, wherein said adapter neck further comprises a pump to which is joined a first feeding channel extending from said cavity, wherein the pump is actuated by pivotal movement of said neck relative to said proximate end of said handle about a pivoting axis; and a cartridge connection yoke disposed at an opposite end of said neck from said handle; through which said feeding channel runs; and a razor cartridge comprising a blade wherein said cartridge is joined to said neck by said cartridge connection yoke and wherein said feeding channel continues to run to a disposal point on said cartridge, wherein said pivoting axis of said adapter neck is spaced apart from the razor cartridge. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bressler (US 2005/0144786 Al, pub. July 7, 2005). 1 Claims 9-11 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bressler and Saito (US 7 ,234,239 B2, iss. June 26, 2007). 1 The caption for this rejection does not list claim 6, but the body of the rejection includes findings for claim 6. Final Act. 3, 5. Thus, we treat claim 6 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bressler. Id. at 5. 2 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bressler and Haws (US 6,754,958 B2, iss. June 29, 2004). Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bressler and Bezdek (US 2007/0214646 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bressler and Tanabe (US 4,512,077, iss. Apr. 23, 1985). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 31-33 as anticipated by Bressler Appellant argues claims 1, 4--6, 22, 26, 27, and 31-33 as a group and separately argues claims 2, 23, and 7. Br. 3---6. We select claim 1 as the representative claim of the group and address claims 2, 23, and 7 separately. Claims 1, 4---6, 22, 26, 2 7, and 31-3 3 The Examiner found that Bressler discloses shaving razor 14 having handle 12, cavity (holding 22), adapter neck (pump 24, passage 44 in Fig. 5), and razor cartridge 20 joined to the adapter neck by connection yoke 14; where pump 24 is actuated by pivotal movement of the adapter neck relative to the proximate end of handle 12. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3. The Examiner found that pleats 40 of bellows 42 allow head assembly 14 to float freely and provide a cantilever effect for the adapter neck so it moves pivotally about this connection point to expand and collapse bellows 42 and release shaving aid, as claimed. Final Act. 4, 10-11; Ans. 9-10. Appellant argues that Bressler's pump 24 is operated when pleats 40 are collapsed and expanded in response to pressure applied to razor cartridge 20, rather than when head assembly 14 pivots at pivot point 19. Br. 4. Thus, Appellant argues that bellows 42 are not near pivot point 19 and the adapter neck is not pivotally joined to a proximate end of the handle. Id. at 4--5. 3 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner did not rely on Bressler's disclosure of a head assembly that is pivotally mounted at pivot point 19 in Figure 5. Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 11. Instead, the Examiner found that Bressler's disclosure of a freely floating head assembly 14 would cause adapter neck (pump 24 with bellows 42 and pleats 40, passage 44) to pivot and thereby actuate pump 24 to dispense shaving aid. Ans. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner that this action results in at least some pivoting of the adapter neck about a pivoting axis during shaving with free floating head 14. Bressler discloses that free floating head assembly 14 is connected via passage 44 to bellows 42 and pleats 40, so free movement of head assembly 14 would cause at least some pivotal action at bellows 42 and pleats 40 to cause pleats 40 to contract and to expand, and the adapter neck to pivot relative to a proximate end of the handle, as claimed. Claim 1 does not require any particular type of pivotal action or a particular configuration of an adapter neck for the pivotal movement. The Examiner had a sound basis to find that Bressler's free floating head 14 would cause pivotal movement at the connection of passage 44 and pleats 40 and activate pump 24 through the contraction and expansion of pleats 40. See Bressler i-fi-121, 24, Fig. 5. Appellant has not persuaded us that Bressler's shaving razor would not undergo such pivotal action. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where the PTO has reason to believe that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, an appellant has the burden to show that the prior art structure does not inherently possess the functional feature). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 22, 26, 27, and 31-33. 4 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Claims 2 and 23 Claims 2 and 23 depend respectively from independent claims 1 and 22 and recite that the handle has upper and lower portions that fit together to form the handle. The Examiner found that Bressler discloses a handle with an upper portion (hinged door 13) and a separate lower portion 12. Ans. 4. The Examiner reasoned that Figures 4 and 6 show upper portion 13 hinged to lower portion 12 so they fit together to form a handle consistent with the common English definition of "fit." Id. at 11. Appellant argues that the hinged connection between the two portions of Bressler does not disclose portions that "fit" under a broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the Specification. Br. 5---6. Appellant does not propose a construction of "fit," however. The Examiner has established by a preponderance of evidence that Bressler discloses a handle with upper and lower portions that "fit" together. An ordinary meaning of "fit" includes "to be the right size and shape for (someone or something)." See Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/fit (last viewed July 20, 2016). This meaning is consistent with Appellant's disclosure that upper portion 16 and lower portion 17 of handle 10 "are intended for connectable joinder to form the handle." Spec. 3: 15-16. Original claim 2 recited only that "the handle comprises an upper and a lower portion that fit together to form the handle." No other details are disclosed or claimed regarding the manner in which the upper and lower portions of the handle fit together. Bressler' s upper hinged door 13 fits into lower handle 12 and these two elements thereby form a singular handle as shown in Figures 4 and 6. Ans. 11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 23. 5 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the pump comprises a rigid wall upon which force is acted to cause the movement of non-rigid sidewalls of said pump to move a treatment composition through the feeding channel to the disposal point." The Examiner found that Bressler discloses a rigid wall near valve 48 and conduits 36 upon which force is acted to cause non-rigid sidewalls (pleats 40) to collapse and move a treatment composition through the feeding channel to the disposal point as claimed. Ans. 4, 11-12. Appellant argues that Bressler does not disclose a rigid wall that is acted upon by a force is acted to cause movement of pleats 40 even if pleats 40 are sidewalls because pleats 40 can be collapsed based on compression of other elements as well. Br. 6. Appellant also argues that Bressler is silent about whether the wall near check valve 48 is rigid and the Examiner has not provided any support for this finding. Id. The Examiner had a sound basis for finding that Bressler discloses a rigid pump wall around check valve 48 and passage 44, and this wall is acted upon by forces from free floating head 14 to cause non-rigid side walls of pump 24 (i.e., pleats 40 of bellows 42) to contract and thus move shaving material through passage 44 and conduits 36 to ports 33. Bressler i-f 24. This wall is "rigid" as compared to collapsible pleats 40 of bellows 42 and thus causes pleats 40 to contract and pump shaving material. Ans. 11-12. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claims 9-11and28-30 as unpatentable over Bressler and Saito The Examiner found that Saito teaches an adjustable flow rate switch (manipulator 201) as recited in claims 9 and 28, which depend respectively from claims 1 and 22. Ans. 6. 6 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Appellant argues that Saito appears to disclose lotion that is dispensed when balls 124 are pressed against a user's skin through linear movement, rather than pivotal movement, and thus does not cure Bressler's failure to disclose an adapter neck pivotally joined to the proximate end of the handle or a pump actuated by pivotal movement of the neck, as recited in claims 1 and 22. Br. 7-8. Because we find that Bressler discloses this feature of claims 1 and 22, as discussed above, there is no deficiency in this regard for Saito to cure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9-11 and 28-30. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Bressler and Haws The Examiner found that Haws discloses a safety razor with container that can be a sealed sachet, as recited in claim 12. Ans. 6-7. Appellant argues that Haws does not cure Bressler' s failure to disclose an adapter neck pivotally joined to the proximate end of the handle or a pump actuated by pivotal movement of the neck as recited in claim 1. Br. 8- 9. Because we find that Bressler does disclose this feature of claim 1; as discussed above, there is no deficiency in this regard for Haws to cure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16. Claims 17-19 as unpatentable over Bressler and Bezdek The Examiner found that Bezdek teaches a cartridge with a spreading medium and removable protection cap, as recited in claims 17-19. Ans. 8. Appellant argues that Bezdek does not cure Bressler' s failure to disclose an adapter neck pivotally joined to the proximate end of the handle or a pump actuated by pivotal movement of the neck as recited in claim 1. Br. 9-11. Because we find that Bressler does disclose this feature of claim 1, as discussed above, there is no deficiency in this regard for Bezdek to cure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 17-19. 7 Appeal2014-002330 Application 12/138,026 Claim 20 as unpatentable over Bressler and Tanabe The Examiner relied on Tanabe for an ejector button that releasably engages the cartridge as recited in claim 20. Ans. 8-9. Appellant argues that Bressler fails to disclose an adapter neck that is pivotally joined to the proximate end of the handle or a pump actuated by pivotal movement of the neck as recited in claim 1, and Tanabe fails to cure this deficiency. Br. 11. Because we find that Bressler does disclose this feature of claim 1, as discussed above, there is no deficiency for Tanabe to cure in this regard. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 20. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 26-33. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation