12174058 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

Ex Parte Claus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 2014

12174058 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte OLIVER H. CLAUS, JOSEPH ALLAN DEPUYDT, STEVE S. HAHN, YONGQING JU, JOHN MADEIRA, KRASSIMIR GRIGOROV MARCHEV, KENNETH JAMES SKROBIS, NEVILLE SONNENBERG, and CHARLES SAMUEL WHITE ____________________ Appeal 2012-010946 Application 12/174,058 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Oliver H. Claus et al. (“Appellants”) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of claims 1–12. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-010946 Application 12/174,058 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellants’ invention is directed to razor blades. See Spec. 1, ll. 1–2. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below with emphasis on a relevant claim limitation. 1. A razor blade comprising: a stainless steel substrate with a cutting edge being defined by a sharpened tip, said substrate having a thickness of between about 1.3 and 1.6 micrometers measured at a distance of four micrometers from the blade tip, a thickness of between about 2.2 and 2.7 micrometers measured at a distance of eight micrometers from the blade tip, a thickness of between about 3.8 and 4.9 micrometers measured at a distance of sixteen micrometers from the blade tip, a ratio of thickness measured at four micrometers to the thickness measured at eight micrometers of at least 0.55 and a ratio of thickness measured at four micrometers to the thickness measured at sixteen micrometers of at least 0.30. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curry (US 4,720,918, issued Jan. 26, 1988); (ii) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Althaus (US 5,275,672, issued Jan. 4, 1994); (iii) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Sastri (US 3,835,537, issued Sept. 17, 1974); and (iv) claims 4–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Clipstone (US 6,684,513 B1, issued Feb. 3, 2004). Appeal 2012-010946 Application 12/174,058 3 ANALYSIS Claim 1 as Unpatentable over Curry In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Curry discloses the razor blade of claim 1, including a stainless steel substrate with a cutting edge, but does not disclose the particular blade thicknesses and ratio of thicknesses, as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4–5 (citing Curry, col. 3, l. 50 and Fig. 1). Notably, the Examiner relies on a particular example within Curry that discloses blade thicknesses that are larger than Appellants’ claimed thicknesses. See id. (apparently relying on Curry, col. 4, ll. 24–37). We further note that this particular example appears to be based on Curry’s “Basic Formula,” defined as: See Curry, col. 1, ll. 8–21; see also Curry, col. 4, ll. 24–37 (providing that n is in the range of 0.65 to 0.75, a is in the range of 0.71 to 0.92, w is the blade width, and d is the distance from the blade tip).1 Despite finding that Curry does not disclose the claimed blade thicknesses, however, the Examiner determines that It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Curry[] by providing the [claimed thinner blade thicknesses and ratio of thicknesses] for the purpose of improving [] shaving, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 1 We note that the disclosed thicknesses relied on by the Examiner fall within—but not at—the upper and lower limits of the Basic Formula, when applying the upper and lower limits of a and n. We further note that the blade width (w) lower limit, as measured from 4.0 and 8.0 micrometers from the blade tip (d), equals 1.75 and 2.74 micrometers, respectively, when a is assigned its lower limit of 0.71 and n is assigned its lower limit of 0.65. Appeal 2012-010946 Application 12/174,058 4 discovering the optimum value or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 5 (citing In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)). In contesting this rejection, Appellants argue that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the disclosure of Curry would not have modified the stainless steel blades of Curry as suggested in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added). Appellants further argue that “Curry teaches away from such a modification for stainless steel blades by directing the skilled man to alternative materials in order to make a thinner blade.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellants then cite to a particular disclosure in Curry that provides, “[i]t must be appreciated that the tip shapes described above are for stainless steel blades and could be made substantially thinner for harder blade materials such as sapphire, titanium carbide[,] or diamond.” Id. (citing Curry, col. 4, ll. 62–65) (emphasis added). “When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Because Curry suggests using sapphire, titanium carbide, or diamond instead of stainless steel for “substantially thinner blades,” we find that Curry teaches away from stainless steel blades thinner than those explicitly provided in the Basic Formula, . See Curry, col. 4, ll. 62–65.2 2 The Basic Formula appears to be directed to uncoated stainless steel blades. Curry additionally discloses the possibility of using a stainless steel Appeal 2012-010946 Application 12/174,058 5 For the foregoing reasons, do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Curry. Rejection of Claims 2–12 as Unpatentable The Examiner’s use of the teachings of Althaus, Sastri, and Clipstone do not remedy the deficiency of Curry as described, supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 2 as unpatentable over Curry in view of Althaus; claim 3 as unpatentable over Curry in view of Sastri; and claims 4–12 as unpatentable over Curry in view of Clipstone. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 is reversed. REVERSED Klh blade substrate coated at the tip region with a material that is harder and has a higher yield strength than stainless steel. Curry, col. 5, ll. 5–20. For such constructions, a “modified formula” for determining the width or chord width of the stainless steel blade is proposed, with Curry noting that the chord widths resulting from the Basic Formula would be reduced. Id. The Examiner does not rely on this portion of the Curry disclosure in the rejections of the claims.