11151960 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Neamtu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 23, 2012

11151960 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

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. 11/151,960 06/14/2005 Nicolae Neamtu 8082B/Z-03691C2 6134 27752 7590 07/24/2012 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global Legal Department - IP Sycamore Building - 4th Floor 299 East Sixth Street CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/24/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte NICOLAE NEAMTU and STEPHEN F. HOBBS ____________ Appeal 2010-007751 Application 11/151,960 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nicolae Neamtu and Stephen F. Hobbs (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 32-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-005571 Application 11/151,960 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “shaving razor blades and stock material, manufacturing methods and apparatus therefor.” Spec 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An elongated stock material for use in manufacturing shaving razor blades, said material comprising an elongated, flat strip of metal having a front edge and a back edge extending along its length, a sharpened cutting edge portion extending along said front edge, a weakened portion between said front edge and said back edge, a blade portion between said cutting edge portion and said weakened portion, wherein said blade portion comprises a generally rounded edge portion adjacent said weakened portion, a removable portion between said weakened portion and said back edge, and wherein said removable portion is offset from said blade portion along a plane extending backwards from said sharpened cutting edge portion centrally through said blade portion. THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejection: Claims 1-7 and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the admitted prior art blade material shown in FIG. 3 of the instant application in view of Blase (US 4,477,537, issued Oct. 16, 1984). Appeal 2010-005571 Application 11/151,960 3 ANALYSIS Obviousness over Blase and the admitted prior art The Examiner has made the following findings: Blase et al. teach (see Fig.9) it is desirable to provide a metal sheet (M') with a line of weakness to facilitate separating the metal sheet into component parts and to ensure a substantially burr- free nature of the fracture. Further, the weakened portion (i.e. the reduced thickness 33') includes offset grooves/notches (see Fig.9) each having a steep surface and a gradually deflecting surface. Also, the two portions that are connected by the weakened portion (33') are offset from each other in which the longitudinal center line of one portion is offset from the longitudinal center line of the other portion as seen in Fig.9. Moreover, one of the portions comprises a generally rounded edge portion adjacent the weakened portion (33'). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the prior art blade material by including a reduced thickness weakened portion formed of two offset grooves, offset portions connected by the weakened portion, and a rounded edge portion on one of the offset portions adjacent the weakened portion to facilitate separating the component parts and to ensure a substantially a burr-free nature of the fracture as taught by Blase et al. Ans. 4. The Appellants’ arguments are reduced to a single substantive issue. The Appellants propose that Blase “… only contemplates working with cylindrical punches to create circular cutouts.” App Br. 4. Addressing Claim 1, the proper inquiry is whether the Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on a rational underpinning to explain why a person of Appeal 2010-005571 Application 11/151,960 4 ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the admitted prior art with the teachings of Blase in the manner claimed. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (Rejecting the rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness, but nonetheless making clear that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). The Examiner’s application of the teaching of Blase is related to the nature of the weakened portion used to create a fracture, in this case a burr- free fracture in sheet metal. In addition, the Specification discloses that a “hard point tool” similar to the punch disclosed in Blase, could be used to form the weakened portion to create a burr-free fracture. Spec. 6. The Examiner’s combination of the admitted prior art and Blase was based on adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings. Thus, the Examiner has met the burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the Examiner has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.1992). Nothing in Appellants’ arguments provide evidence as to why it would be unreasonable to apply the teachings of Blase to form a straight burr-free fracture as opposed to a circular burr-free fracture taught by Blase. We find that the Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2010-005571 Application 11/151,960 5 The Appellants do not separately argue claims 2-7 and 32-34, beyond the underlying claim 1. Therefore, we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-7 and 32-34 as being unpatentable over the combination of the admitted prior art and Blase. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 32-34. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls