Ex Parte Jessemey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

13006888 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
13/006,888 01/14/2011 Paul Michael Jessemey Z-8507 5473
27752 7590 02/10/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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 PAUL MICHAEL JESSEMEY
and KEVIN JAMES WAIN
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 3—10. Claim 2 was cancelled. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to hair removal devices (for example
shaving razors). Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A hair removal cartridge comprising:
a housing having a front end wall;
a cap;
at least one blade mounted to the housing, the blade having
a blade edge in front of the cap; and
a guard in front of the blade, the guard including an
elongated recess having an open front end and defined by an
interior rear wall running parallel to the at least one blade and a
pair of lateral side walls extending from the interior rear wall to
the front end wall of the housing wherein elongated recess has
an overall width extending parallel to the blade that is 70% to
100% of an overall width of the guard.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Perry US 3,892,036 July 1, 1975
Ortiz US 5,689,883 Nov. 25, 1997
Warrick US 6,173,498 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Clark US 2003/0159291 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
Nicoll WO 2010/059652 A1 May 27, 2010
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1,3,4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nicoll.1
1 Claim 2 is included in this rejection in the Final Action. Final Action 2.
However, the Final Action elsewhere indicates that claim 2 is no longer
pending. Id. at 1; see also Claims App; Br. 1 (claim 2 was canceled).
2
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
2. Claims 1 and 3—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Clark.
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nicoll and Perry.
4. Claims 7—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nicoll and Ortiz.2
OPINION
Anticipation by Nicoll
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 as a group. Br. 2-4. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
The Examiner finds that Nicoll discloses all of the elements of
claim 1. Final Action 2-4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Nicoll
discloses a guard with an elongated recess that has an open front end as
claimed. Id. at 3.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Nicoll
lacks an elongated recess with an open front end as claimed. Br. 3.
Appellants argue that Nicoll’s recess 84 is defined by front wall 78, rear
wall 76, and side walls 80 and 82 such that recess 84 does not have an “open
front end.” Id.
In response, the Examiner provides an annotated version of Nicoll
Figure 4A and then explains that the open front end is best seen when the
guard 18 is viewed from its side. Ans. 11. In that regard, the Examiner also
provides an annotated version of Nicoll Figure 8 A. Ans. 12. The Examiner
2 A ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Prudden
(US 2008/0034590 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008) has been withdrawn. Ans. 9-10.
3
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
further explains that the opening or recess of guard 106 is oriented at least
partially toward the “front” when the shaver is held in an operative position.
Id. at 11—12.
With respect to Figure 2, Nicoll explains that:
The wet shaving razor 12 may have one or more blades 42
positioned between a cap 44 at a rear portion of the cartridge 16
and the shaving aid retention guard 18 at a front portion of the
cartridge 16. In certain embodiments, the shaving aid retention
guard 18 may be used in place of the cap 44, thus the
cartridge 16 may also include a plurality of shaving aid
retention guards 18 or may have the shaving aid retention
guard 18 in the cap 44 position. ... A user may insert the
cartridge 16 into the container of shaving aid 22, such that
shaving aid retention guard 18 contacts and retains a certain
amount of shaving aid. The cartridge 16 may then be placed
against an area of skin to be shaved. As the cartridge 16 passes
along the surface of the skin the shaving aid retention guard 18
may apply the shaving aid just prior to the one or more
blades 42 shaves the area. The shaving aid may be applied to
the skin simultaneously as the one or more blades 42 shaves the
skin. Alternatively, the user may place only the shaving aid
retention guard 18 against the area of skin to be shaved. The
shaving aid retention guard 18 may apply the shaving aid to the
entire area to be shaved before the blades 42 contact the skin.
The user may then contact the cartridge 16 and the one or
blades 42 against the surface of the skin and proceed to shave
the area.
Nicoll, pp. 4—5. The foregoing explanation is sufficient to inform a person
of ordinary skill in the art that shaving aid retention guard 18 is used as a
reservoir to facilitate the dispensing of shaving aid (e.g., shaving cream)
onto the skin of the user. Dispensing of the shaving aid occurs using a
motion that is identical to that, or at least substantially similar to, the motion
that is used to cause blades 42 to shave the skin. In view of the foregoing
disclosure of Nicoll, the Examiner’s finding that Nicoll discloses a guard in
4
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
front of the blade that includes an elongated recess with an “open front end”
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,4,
and 10 as anticipated by Nicoll.
Unpatentability of Claims 5—9
over Combinations Based on Nicoll
Claims 5—9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims App.
The Examiner relies on either Perry or Ortiz as disclosing the various
additional limitations of these dependent claims. Final Action 7—8. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to achieve the inventions of these
claims by combining the references as proposed by the Examiner. Id.
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claims 5—9
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 1 which we have
previously considered and found unpersuasive. Br. 6. Repeating those
arguments with respect the rejections of claim 5—9 does not apprise us of
error and, accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5—9.
Anticipation by Clark
In view of our affirmance of the Examiner’s grounds of rejection
based on Nicoll, we do not reach the Examiner’s alternative ground of
rejection over Clark. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (The affirmance of the
rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general
affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim, except as to any
ground specifically reversed).
5
Appeal 2015-002661
Application 13/006,888
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3—10 is affirmed.
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
6