Ex Parte Clarke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12138026 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

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