Ex Parte Pohl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13193648 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/193,648 07 /29/2011
27752 7590 09/02/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thorsten Pohl
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.
Z08500Q 8346
EXAMINER
PATEL, BHARAT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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 THORSTEN POHL, JOACHIM KRAUSS, TOBIAS SCHWARZ,
PETER JUNK, REINHOLD EICHHORN, ANDREAS PETER, MICHAEL
ODEMER, MARTIN FUELLGRABE, CHRISTOPH ZEGULA,
ALOIS KOEPPL, and STEFAN FUERST
Appeal2014-008463
Application 13/193,648
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thorsten Pohl et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): (1) claim 1
as anticipated by Izumi (US 2004/0055158 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2004), and (2)
claims 1-7, 9, and 10 as anticipated by Sato (US 6,293,017 Bl; iss. Sept. 25,
2001); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claim 8 as unpatentable over Sato
and Martin (US 2,331,27 4; iss. Oct. 5, 1943), (2) claim 9 as unpatentable
over Sato and Locke (US 4,081,902; iss. Apr. 4, 1978), and (3) claim 10 as
Appeal2014-008463
Application 13/193,648
unpatentable over Sato, Locke, and Murphy (US 2,298,962; iss. Oct. 13,
1942). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "dry shavers having a shaving
head with multiple cutting units." Spec. 1:6, Figs. 2, 3, 4.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A shaving head for an electric dry shaver, comprising a
base element for carrying at least three cutter units each
providing an outer cutter and inner cutter arranged to be moved
in sliding contact relative to each other, whereby at least one
cutter unit comprises a foil-type outer cutter, wherein the shaving
head further comprises a first trimmer-type cutting unit having
an outer cutter that comprises a plurality of slots defined by a
plurality of adjacent bar elements featuring cutting edges, and a
second trimmer=type cutting unit having an outer cutter that
comprises a plurality of teeth featuring cutting edges and spaced
from each other to define a plurality of slits.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Izumi
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a trimmer-type cutting unit "having
an outer cutter that comprises a plurality of teeth." Br. 5, Claims App.
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Izumi discloses a "trimmer-type
cutting unit 7 having an outer cutter 7 a that comprises a plurality of teeth
(defined by edges of slit forms which are on underside of the slit)." See
Final Act. 2-3; Izumi, para. 45, Figs. 2(a), 3(a), 9.
2
Appeal2014-008463
Application 13/193,648
Appellants contend that item 7 of Izumi "constitute[ s] a series of slit
forming bars" but does not "constitute[] a cutter comprising teeth," as
claimed. Br. 2.
At the outset, the Examiner does not address this argument or
otherwise indicate that Appellants' contention is incorrect. See Ans. 2. 1
Izumi discloses "[t]he rough shaving cutter unit 7 includes a slit-form
immovable outer cutter 7 a." Izumi, para. 45 (emphasis added); see also id.
at para. 43, Fig. 7; Final Act. 2-3. We agree with Appellants that slit-form
outer cutter 7 a of Izumi does not constitute a cutter comprising teeth, as
claimed. Br. 2. Further, a skilled artisan would not consider "[the] edges of
[the] slit forms" of outer cutter 7a of Izumi to constitute teeth. 2 See In re
Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Although the PTO must
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must
be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.").
Moreover, the Examiner's position that "it is old and well known in the art
of shaving to provide slit/slot/teeth arrangement as taught by [Wetzel3 and
Gray4] ," is insufficient to show that Izumi anticipates "the [claimed]
1 The Examiner's response appears to refer to the Sato reference not the Izumi
reference. Compare Ans. 2-3 (the Examiner's response to anticipation by
Izumi), with Ans. 3--4 (the Examiner's response to anticipation by Sato).
2 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "tooth," consistent with use
of this term in the Specification, is: "a sharp or pointed object that sticks out
of something and is part of a row of similar objects." See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tooth (last visited Aug. 28,
2016); see also Spec. 5:29---6:10, Fig. 4.
3 (US 5,669,138; iss. Sept. 23, 1997).
4 (US 2,915,816; iss. Dec. 8, 1959).
3
Appeal2014-008463
Application 13/193,648
combination of elements [as] set forth in [claim 1]." Ans. 3; see also Final
Act. 7-8; Br. 2.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Izumi.
Anticipation by Sato
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a trimmer-type cutting unit "having
an outer cutter that comprises a plurality of teeth." Br. 5, Claims App.
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Sato discloses a "trimmer-type
cutting unit 1 (as Left side of recess 81, Figs. 1-3) having an outer cutter 2
that comprises a plurality of teeth (defined by edges of bars 80 which are on
underside of the bar)." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that the claims call for two distinct cutter types,
"one comprising bars forming slots and one comprising teeth forming slits,
[Sato] provides only a single bar/slit type." Br. 2.
Here, the Examiner relies on the same outer cutter 2 of cutting unit 1
of Sato for disclosing bars forming slots and teeth forming slits. Final Act.
3; Ans. 3; see also Br. 2. Sato discloses that slit outer blade 2 "is formed
with a plurality of bars 80 spanning the side walls 4, 4" and "[e]ach bar 80 is
formed with blade edges 5." Sato, 6:66-7:1, 7:7-8, respectively, Fig. 3. We
agree with Appellants that bar/slit outer cutter 2 of Sato does not constitute a
cutter comprising teeth, as claimed. Br. 2. Further, a skilled artisan would
not consider " [the] edges of bars 80" of outer cutter 2 of Sato to constitute
teeth. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1358. Moreover, the Examiner's
position that "it is old and well known in the art of shaving to provide
slit/slot/teeth arrangement as taught by [Wetzel and Gray]," is insufficient to
4
Appeal2014-008463
Application 13/193,648
show that Sato anticipates "the claimed combination of elements," as set
forth in claim 1. Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 8; Br. 2.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7,
9, and 10 as anticipated by Sato.
Obviousness over Sato and either Martin or Locke or
Sato, Locke, and Murphy
Claims 8-10
The Examiner's rejections of (1) claim 8 as unpatentable over Sato
and Martin, (2) claim 9 as unpatentable over Sato and Locke, and (3) claim
10 as unpatentable over Sato, Locke, and Murphy are each based on the
same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to the rejection of
claim 1. See Final Act 5---6. The Examiner does not rely on Martin, Locke,
or Murphy to remedy the deficiencies of Sato. Accordingly, for reasons
similar to those discussed above for the rejection of claim 1, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of (1) claim 8 as unpatentable over Sato
and Martin, (2) claim 9 as unpatentable over Sato and Locke, and (3) claim
10 as unpatentable over Sato, Locke, and Murphy.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10.
REVERSED
5