Ex Parte Oglesby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13179081 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/179,081 07/08/2011
27752 7590 08/30/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oliver David Oglesby
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-4675C 9696
EXAMINER
PATEL, BHARAT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 OLIVER DAVID OGLESBY, SEAN PETER CLARKE,
TERENCE GORDON ROYLE, LUKE RICHARD STONE,
LAURENCE JOHN ROBINSON, and
JOHN JAMES WLASSICH
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Olivier David Oglesby et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-8.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies The Gillette Company as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 9, and 10 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1 (Final
Office Action, dated Dec. 13, 2013).
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure "relates to shaving razors and more particularly
to shaving razors having a light source that projects an image onto the skin
indicating the location of a blade edge on the skin of a user enabling the user
to properly align the blade edge on the skin during shaving." Spec. 1, 11. 7-
10.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A shaving razor comprising a housing joined to a handle,
one or more blades mounted in the housing, and a light source,
each of said blades comprising a blade edge, said light source
projecting a defined image comprising a line segment, wherein
the light source is arranged to indicate the exact location of one
of said blade edges on the skin of a user enabling proper
alignment of the blade edge during shaving.
Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
II. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hansen (US 5,582,476, issued Dec. 10, 1996).
III. Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Brzezinski (US 6,915,576 B2, issued July 12, 2005).
2
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that the limitation in claim 1 of "said light
source projecting a defined image comprising a line segment, wherein the
light source is arranged to indicate the exact location of one of said blade
edges on the skin of a user enabling proper alignment of the blade edge
during shaving" is confusing. Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend that the disputed claim limitation apprises one of
ordinary skill in the art of its scope when analyzed in light of the written
description and drawings. Br. 9. In support, Appellants reference the
Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Luke Stone and Dr. Laurence
Robinson ("Jones/Robinson Declaration" or "Deel.") filed on February 6,
2009, in parent Application No. 11/486,642. Id. Appellants contend the
Jones/Robinson Declaration explains that "[f]igures of the present
application show how the line segment projects a line representing the blade
onto the face so as to guide the razor correctly onto the face." Id. (emphasis
added). Appellants further contend that "the light source is 'accurate' or
'exact' for the purpose of aligning a blade for trimming hair, not for
indicating the position of the blade after or during a shaving stroke (i.e., user
lines the blade up with the line segment projected on the skin)." Id.
Appellants' Specification describes the embodiment shown in Figure
4 as follows:
Light source 60 projects a defined image 62 from handle 13, such
as a line segment, onto the skin 70 of the user. The defined image
62 indicates the location at which blade edge 20 of blade 19 will
contact the skin 70 of the user. This enables the user to properly
align blade edge 20 on the skin for accurate shaving of the hair.
3
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
Spec. 4, 11. 12-16 (emphasis added); see also id. at Fig. 4. Regarding the
embodiment shown in Figure 8, the Specification describes that "[t]he
defined image 62 is to indicate the exact location at which blade edge 20 of
blade 19 will contact the skin 70 of the user. This enables the user to
properly align blade edge 20 on the skin for accurate shaving of the hair."
Id. at 6, 11. 19-22 (emphasis added); see also id. at Fig. 8.
Appellants' contentions are consistent with this description in the
Specification. However, the actual language of the disputed limitation is not
consistent with this description. We agree with the Examiner that the
meaning of the disputed limitation is unclear.
Claim 1 recites that "the light source is arranged to indicate the exact
location of one of said blade edges on the skin of a user enabling proper
alignment of the blade edge during shaving" (emphasis added). According
to the above-noted description in the Specification, however, the line
segment is projected on the skin of a user at the exact location where a blade
edge will contact the skin during shaving. Accordingly, the "exact location"
appears to be the intended or desired location "on the skin" where the blade
edge will contact. Projecting the line segment at the "exact location"
enables proper alignment of the blade edge by the user during shaving.
During examination before the USPTO, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
However, it appears that, in order to construe the disputed limitation in claim
1 to have a meaning consistent with the Specification, the disputed limitation
would need to be construed, for example: "the light source is arranged to
indicate the [intended or desired] location [at which] one of said blade edges
4
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
[will contact] the skin of a user." That is, in order to construe the disputed
limitation to have a meaning consistent with the Specification would require
improperly reading limitations into the claim from the Specification. See In
re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (cautioning the USPTO
against reading limitations into a claim from the Specification under the
broadest reasonable construction). Accordingly, we decline to construe the
disputed limitation in this manner.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
Re} ection 113
The Examiner finds that Hansen discloses a shaving razor comprising,
inter alia, blades 12 and light source 18 projecting defined image 31
comprising line segment 31, wherein light source 18 is arranged to indicate
the exact location of one of the blade edges on the skin of a user, enabling
proper alignment of the blade edge during shaving. Final Act. 3 (citing
Hansen, col. 2, 11. 21-57; Figs. 1-5).
Hansen discloses an illuminating safety razor including a head that
illuminates the area to be shaved. Hansen, Abstract. Figure 2 of Hansen
shows a first embodiment of a safety razor including blades 12, light bulb
18, and optical fiber bundles 15. Light emitted by light bulb 18 is
transmitted by optical fiber bundles 15 and passes through translucent
windows 23, 24 and is directed adjacent blades 12. Id. at col. 2, 11. 34--39;
3 Although we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 as being indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the indefiniteness of these claims
does not impact our consideration of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
Fig. 2. Hansen describes that Figure 2 shows the "spray of light rays 31"
from windows 23 U, 24 U and 23 L, 24 L. Id. at col. 2, 11. 42--44.
Hansen also discloses a second embodiment of the safety razor
including blades 12 and single windows 16 U, 16 L coextensive with blades
12 to provide maximum illumination. Hansen, col. 2, 11. 58---62; Fig. 6.
Hansen describes that "there is a single upper window 16 U and a single
lower window 16 L, each window coextensive with blades 12, and thereby
concentrates the available light at the blades 12 with no outwardly angled
illumination." Id. at col. 3, 11. 12-16.
Appellants contend Hansen "does not disclose 'a defined image
comprising a line segment, wherein the light source is arranged to indicate
the exact location of one of said blade edges on the skin of a user enabling
proper alignment of the blade edge during shaving,"' as claimed. Br. 3.
According to Appellants, Hansen fails to disclose "a line segment of any
kind." Id. Appellants assert that Hansen merely discloses a safety razor
with a head that illuminates the area to be shaved, and does not disclose a
line segment to locate the blade edge. Id. at 4. In support, Appellants
reference the Jones/Robinson Declaration. Id. Appellants assert that "[t]his
declaration also explains why it would be unreasonable to read Hansen as
disclosing a defined image capable of aligning a blade for accurate
trimming." Id. at 4--5.
In response, the Examiner states:
Hansen discloses the illumination of the area to be shaved by
allowing light to pass thru openings/windows 16L, 16U, 23L &
23U which creates a line segment and also the obstruction of
blade 12 creates shadow which results in line segment image
producing the proximate location for the starting of the cut. This
area includes collections of line segments as light wave travels in
6
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
straight line format. Thus a shadow is being created by the blade
being in between the light sources and thus a line segment is
created.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Regarding a "line segment," Appellants' Specification describes:
In Fig. 4 the defined image 62 is a line segment. The
defined image 62 may be a plurality of line segments projected
onto skin 70 as shown in Fig. 5. The size of each line segment,
the spacing between line segments and the number of line
segments can be optimized as desired.
Spec. 5, 11. 3---6; Figs. 5.
A definition of a "line" is "8: a straight or curved geometric element
that is generated by a moving point and that has extension only along the
path of the point: curve." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary 723
(11th ed. 2003). A definition of "segment" is "le: the finite part of a line
between two points in the line." Id. at 1124. Appellants' Figure 4 shows a
line segment that includes its endpoints. Figure 5 shows multiple line
segments, each including its endpoints. The depictions of the line segments
in Figures 4 and 5 are consistent with the above definitions of "line" and
"segment."
Appellants' contention that Hansen does not disclose the disputed
limitation is persuasive. The Examiner's findings in that regard do not
provide sufficient evidence to establish that Hansen's light bulb 18
necessarily "project[ s] a defined image comprising a line segment." Figure
2 of Hansen shows the "spray of light rays 31" diverging as the light rays
move away from the windows 16 L, 23 L and 16U, 23U. It appears that the
emitted light rays would illuminate a region of the surface onto which they
project. The Examiner's finding that Hansen creates a "shadow" and, thus,
7
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
creates a line segment (Ans. 6) is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Hansen.
Rejection 1114
The Examiner finds that Brzezinski discloses a shaving razor 100
comprising, inter alia, blades 106 and light source 108 projecting a defined
image, A, comprising a line segment, wherein light source 108 is arranged to
indicate the exact location of one of the blade edges on the skin of a user,
enabling proper alignment of the blade edge during shaving. Final Act. 4
(citing Brzezinski, col. 4, 11. 26-55; Figs. 1-3). The Examiner also finds that
"Brzezinski discloses the illumination of the area to be shaved which
satisfies the proximate location for the starting of the cut. This area includes
a line segment. It should also be noted that the Applicant has not definitely
and specifically claimed the line segment type, size and or color." Id.
(emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that, in Brzezinski:
[T]he razor head 104 is formed of a monolithic transparent or
translucent member of a plastic material (col.3, Ln. 9-15, Fig. 1).
Hence the light emitted by the LED source 108 creates a shadow
by the blade structure and a light path or a line segment by the
gap between the cutting edges or spacing between the blades.
Thus, the shadow results in a line segment image producing the
proximate location for the starting of the cut.
Ans. 6-7.
Brzezinski discloses:
Light emitted from LED 108 is dispersed within the plastic
razor. The light beam A is directed towards the surface to be
shaved by a path which is dependent upon factors including, but
4 See supra note 3.
8
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
not limited to, the contour of the razor head 104, the clarity of
the plastic, and the index of refraction of the plastic material.
Brzezinski, col. 4, 11. 11-16; see also id. at Fig. 2.
Appellants contend that Brzezinski does not disclose "'a defined
image comprising a line segment, wherein the light source is arranged to
indicate the exact location of one of said blade edges on the skin of a user
enabling proper alignment of the blade edge during shaving,'" as claimed.
Br. 5. Rather, Appellants contend, Brzezinski discloses that the light is "for
illuminating the area to be shaved." Id. at 6 (citing Brzezinski, col. 1, 11. 10-
13, col. 3, 11. 4---6). Appellants assert that Brzezinski does not disclose a
defined image to be projected, or that the defined image indicates the exact
location on the blade edge on the skin to enable proper alignment of the
blade edge. Id. Rather, Appellants assert, the passage at column 4, lines 11-
16 of Brzezinski "simply says that the light beam A is to be directed towards
the surface to be shaved." Id.
In support, Appellants reference the Jones/Robinson Declaration. Id.
The Jones/Robinson Declaration states:
Brzezinski teaches an illumination system consisting of a light
emitting diode (LED) being orientated to illuminate a large
surface area forward of a path of a razor head for the purposes
of illuminating the area to be shaved. The description does not
include any components designed to manipulate the light from
the LED to alter the spatial distribution of the light.
Deel. 2 (emphasis added). The Jones/Robinson Declaration also states that a
prototype including an LED attached to the handle to illuminate the face was
developed by Gillette based on the teachings of Brzezinski. Id. The
Jones/Robinson Declaration states that, in the prototype based on the
teachings of Brzezinski, "[t]he light from the LED covers a broad region of
9
Appeal2014-009431
Application I3/179,08I
the face and is largely circular in shape. It should also be noted that all of
the blades as well as the surface of the skin is illuminated, as shown in
Figures IA and IB." Id. Figures IA and IB show light illuminating a
surface of a user's skin during shaving. See id. These figures do not show a
"line segment" of light projected on the user's face.
Appellants also contend that, because Brzezinski discloses that the
razor head and handle is manufactured from clear or translucent material, the
light would "illuminate the entire razor head and handle, making it
impossible for 'to indicate the exact location of one of said blade edges on
the skin of a user enabling proper alignment of the blade edge during
shaving[,']" as claimed. Br. 7.
Appellants' contention that Brzezinski does not disclose the disputed
limitation is persuasive. The Examiner's findings do not provide sufficient
evidence to establish that Brzezinski's light source I08 "project[s] a defined
image comprising a line segment" as required by claim 1. The Examiner's
finding that Brzezinski's light source I 08 produces a "shadow [that] results
in a line segment image" (Ans. 6-7) is not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Even if light source I 08 produces a "shadow," it is not
apparent how such shadow either comprises or is a "line segment," as
claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim I and dependent
claims 3-8 as anticipated by Brzezinski.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims I and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § I I2,
second paragraph.
IO
Appeal2014-009431
Application 13/179,081
We reverse the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hansen.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1and3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Brzezinski.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11