Ex Parte Murgida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13552003 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/552,003 07/18/2012 Matthew Frank Murgida Z-8623M 2955
27752 7590 09/25/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
RILEY, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 MATTHEW FRANK MURGIDA,
MICHAEL HAL BRUNO, ASHOK BAKUL PATEL, and
JESSY LEE CUSACK
Appeal 2016-001297
Application 13/552,003* 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—5. Claims 6—20 are withdrawn. See Response to Restriction Requirement
dated October 28, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Gillette Company as the real party in interest. Br.
1.
Appeal 2016-001297
Application 13/552,003
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A handle for a razor, the handle comprising:
a fixed portion comprising a first end and a second end
opposite the first end; and
a rotatable portion coupled to the second end of the fixed
portion of the handle,
wherein the rotatable portion is configured to rotate
relative to the second end of the fixed portion of the handle and
wherein the rotatable portion comprises a first material and a
second material such that the first material is different from the
second material.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Stevens (US 2010/0043242 Al; Feb. 25, 2010).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Stevens.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Stevens and Hashizume et al. (US 2007/0283529 Al; Dec. 13,
2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Stevens discloses a handle for a razor having a
rotatable portion configured to rotate relative to a second end of the fixed
portion of the handle. According to the Examiner, this is accomplished via
Stevens’s disclosures of a first member 31 (the claimed “rotatable portion”)
that can rotate about hinge axis 64 about the first member 32, which is fixed
2
Appeal 2016-001297
Application 13/552,003
to the handle casing 16. Ans. 3—8. Appellants agree that Stevens’s first
member 31 pivots relative to second member 32 via joint member 33, but
Appellants argue that the second member 32 does not move relative to the
handle. Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, claim 1 requires that “the entire
rotatable portion rotates with respect to the second end of the fixed portion
of the handle.” Br. 2 (emphasis added).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error because
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The
plain language of claim 1 requires, in relevant part, “a rotatable portion
coupled to the second end of the fixed portion of the handle, wherein the
rotatable portion is configured to rotate relative to the second end of the
fixed portion of the handle.” Nothing in claim 1 distinguishes structures
such as those disclosed in Stevens in which Stevens’s second member 32 is
fixed with handle casing 16 while the first member 31 pivots relative to the
second member and the handle casing 16. See Ans. 4—5.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Stevens anticipates
claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—5 which depend from claim 1 and are
not argued separately. Br. 3^4.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-5.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
3