Ex Parte Walker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11375661 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 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.
11/375,661 03/14/2006 Vincent P. Walker 8126A/Z-3359D 2542
27752 7590 03/26/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MICHALSKI, SEAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2012 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 VINCENT P. WALKER,
COREY E. CORBEIL, and STEPHEN RAWLE
__________

Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before RICHARD SCHAFER, JAMESON LEE, and SALLY GARDNER
LANE, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The real party in interest, The Gillette Company, appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 52, 58-62, 67-70. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Kurr Pat. 3,803,012 April 9, 1974
Fischer Pat. 5,711,079 January 27, 1998
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

2

Apprille ‘542 Pat. 6,044,542 April 4, 2000
Apprille ‘816 Pat. Re. 36,816 August 15,
2000Brown Pat. 6,185,823 February 13, 2001
Rozenkrane Pat. 6,276,061 August 21, 2001
Prochaska Pat. 6,473,970 November 5, 2002
Shreir -- Shreir, L.L.; Jarman, R.A.; Burstein, G.T. (1994). Corrosion
(3
rd
Edition) Volumes 1-2. Chapter 10, 10.2 “Sacrificial Anode.” Elsevier.
Online version available at:
http://knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_
bookid=713&VerticalID=0 (pp. 10.29 – 10.54)

Magrab -- Magrab, Edward. Integrated Product and Process Design. ©1997
CRC press. Page 143

The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 67 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir.
2. Claims 52 and 67-69 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir.
3. Claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542, Brown,
Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, Shreir, and Magrab.
4. Claims 52, 58-62, and 67-70 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542, Brown,
Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, Shreir, Magrab, and Prochaska.

The Invention
The invention is related to shaving cartridges which retain shaving
blades. All claims recite a shaving blade unit and a metallic sacrificial
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

3

member functioning as a sacrificial anode that corrodes to protect the
shaving blades from corrosion. The independent claims are claims 52 and
67. In claim 67, the sacrificial member is said to be in electrical contact with
both the shaving blades and a metal component to form an anode-cathode
cell in which the sacrificial member forms the anode and the shaving blades
and the metal component form the cathode that is protected from corrosion.
In claim 52, the sacrificial member is said to be in electrical contact with
both the shaving blades and a trimming assembly including a trimming blade
to form an anode-cathode cell in which the sacrificial member forms the
anode and the shaving blades and the trimming blade form the cathode that
is protected from corrosion. Claims 67 and 52 are reproduced below:
67. A shaving blade unit comprising

a plastic housing having a front portion and a rear portion
and two side surfaces extending from said front portion to said
rear portion,

one or more shaving blades between said front portion
and said rear portion, said one or more blades having cutting
edges arranged to define a cutting region,

a metal component arranged on said housing, spaced
from said cutting region; and

a metallic sacrificial member in electrical contact with
both the shaving blades and the metal component, so as to form
an anode-cathode cell in which the sacrificial member functions
as a sacrificial anode that corrodes and the shaving blades and
metal component function
as a cathode that is protected from corrosion.
(App. Br. 17).

Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

4

52. A shaving blade unit comprising
a plastic housing having a front portion and a rear portion
and two side surfaces extending from said front portion to said
rear portion,

one or more shaving blades between said front portion
and said rear portion, said one or more blades having cutting
edges arranged to define a first cutting region,

a trimming assembly including a trimming blade having
a cutting edge arranged on said housing to define a second
cutting region that is spaced from said first cutting region; and

a metallic sacrificial member in electrical contact with
both the shaving blades and the trimming assembly, so as to
form an anode-cathode cell in which the sacrificial member
functions as a sacrificial anode that corrodes and the shaving
blades and trimming blade function
as a cathode that is protected from corrosion.
(App. Br. 16).

DISCUSSION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 67
Over Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir

For this rejection of claim 67 over Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and
Shreir, Appellant has not persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s
reasons in support of the rejection. The entirety of Appellant’s argument,
aside from statements of what the Examiner determined, is reproduced
below:
Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir, whether alone or
in combination, do not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness because they simply do not teach or suggest all of
the claim limitations of claim 67. Neither Apprille ‘816, Kurr,
Fischer, nor Shreir, whether alone or in combination teach or
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

5

suggest a metal component arranged on the housing of a
shaving blade unit spaced from the cutting region.
Furthermore, neither Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir,
whether alone or in combination teach or suggest a metallic
sacrificial member in electrical contact with both the shaving
blades and the metal component, so as to form an anode-
cathode cell in which the sacrificial member functions as a
sacrificial anode that corrodes and the shaving blades and metal
component functions as a cathode that is protected from
corrosion.

Therefore, claim 67 is patentable over Apprille ‘816 in
view of Kurr, and Fischer and Shreir. (Emphasis in original)
(App. Br. 5).

The Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection of claim 67 over
Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir appears on pages 3-6 of the Answer.
There is an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. Appellant has not set forth any specific
allegation of error in the Examiner’s analysis and reasoning. What we have
is only Appellant’s general and conclusory assertion (1) that the prior art
would not have suggested a metal component arranged on the housing of a
shaving blade unit and spaced from the cutting region, and (2) that the prior
art would not have suggested a metallic sacrificial member in electrical
contact with both the shaving blades and the metal component to form an
anode-cathode cell in which the sacrificial member functions as a sacrificial
anode that protects the shaving blades and the metal component as a cathode
from corrosion. Both matters, however, have been adequately explained and
accounted for by the Examiner on pages 3-6 of the Answer.
Because Appellant has not articulated why it believes the Examiner’s
stated reasoning and analysis is incorrect, we are not persuaded of any error
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

6

in the rejection. In that regard, note that Appellant has chosen to not even
file a reply brief to respond to reasoning presented by the Examiner.
The rejection of claim 67 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Kurr,
Fischer, and Shreir is sustained.

The Rejection of Claims 52 and 67-69 as Obvious
over Apprille ‘816, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir

A. Findings
1. Shreir is evidence of the level of ordinary skill in the art on the
use of sacrificial anodes to protect metal items from corrosion.
2. The Examiner determined (Ans.at 15:2-13) and Appellant has
not disputed, that the concept of using “sacrificial anode” to protect a
metallic item from corrosion was well known to one with ordinary skill in
the art – that by placing two metals together in electrical communication as
explained in Shreir, one metal will be relatively protected from corrosion
because the other metal would have properties which cause it to corrode in
place of the protected metal.
3. Fischer discloses a corrosion resistant knife as shown in its
Figures 3 and 3A reproduced below (Figure 3 shows an exploded inside
view beneath the handle; Figure 3A shows the top plan view of the
inscription marking on a sacrificial anode 38/40):

Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

7

4. Fischer states (Fischer 1:31-37): “It is known that metallic
members can be protected from galvanic corrosion by providing the
members with an anodic material that corrodes preferentially with respect to
the member metal, thereby sacrificially corroding the anodic material and
preserving the metallic member. This technique is commonly known as
“anodic protection” or “cathodic protection.”
5. Fischer discloses a metal component, tang 31, which is spaced
from the cutting region of the blade 10 (Figures 1 and 3), and a metallic
sacrificial member (38/40 in Figure 3) in electrical contact with both the
blade and tang 31 to form an anode-cathode cell in which the sacrificial
member functions as the sacrificial anode. (Fischer 4:1-10).
6. Kurr’s Figure 1 is reproduced below, which illustrates use of a
sacrificial anode 19 to protect metallic pipe 15 from corrosion. (Kurr 2:21-
28):

Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

8

7. Kurr’s sacrificial anode 19 is electrically connected to metallic
pipe 15 and threaded intermediate bolt portions 24 and 25. (Kurr Figure 1).
8. Apprille ‘816 discloses a razor blade cartridge including a
plastic housing having a front portion and a rear portion and two side
surfaces extending from the front portion to the end portion. (Apprille ‘816
4:56 to 5:8; Figure 5).
9. Appellant does not dispute that the razor blade cartridge of
Apprille ‘816 includes one or more shaving blades between the front portion
and rear portion of the housing and that the blades have cutting edges
defining a first cutting region.
10. The razor blade cartridge of Apprille ‘816 does not include a
separate trimming blade anywhere.
11. The razor blade cartridge of Apprille does not include any
sacrificial member that functions as a sacrificial anode to protect the shaving
blades from corrosion.
12. Rozenkranc discloses a multi-blade shaving apparatus
comprising a handle holding a head body in which are located shaving
blades and an additional trimming blade. (Rozenkranc 1:31-35).
13. Rozenkranc describes (Rozenkranc 1:53-58): “When the
shaving apparatus according to the present invention is used for regular
shaving the trim-blade is not in contact with the skin. However, when
sideburn trim or a similar action is required the handle is rotated
substantially by 180°. The trim blade then comes in contact with the
sideburns to be trimmed.”
14. Figure 1 of Rozenkranc is reproduced below, which illustrates
the head body of the shaving apparatus:
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

9

15. Figure 1 of Rozenkranc shows three shaving blades 3 and one
trimming blade 4 mounted in the head body 2 of a shaving apparatus. As
shown, the trimming blade 4 is spaced from the shaving blades 3 by an
intermediate element, lubricating strip 5.
B. Analysis
This rejection involves claims 52 and 67-69. As noted above, while
claim 52 requires, in addition to one or more shaving blades, a trimming
assembly arranged on the housing and including a trimming blade, claim 67
does not. Rather, claim 67 requires, in addition to one or more shaving
blades, a metal component 67 arranged on the housing. Claim 68 depends
on claim 67 and specifies that the metal component is a trimming blade.
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

10

Claim 69 depends on claim 68 and further recites a trimming assembly
connected to the housing to secure the trimming blade.
The Examiner relied on Rozenkranc to provide the necessary
teachings regarding the trimming blade assembly and trimming blade,
neither of which is required by claim 67. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 67 in this context is no different from the rejection discussed above of
claim 67 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir, without
Rozenkranc. For reasons already stated above, we are not persuaded of any
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 67.
With regard to the rest of the rejected claims, Appellant presents two
arguments: (1) that while the claims require a trimming assembly,
Rozenkranc discloses only a trimming blade and not a trimming assembly
including the trimming blade; and (2) that while the claims require a
trimming assembly that is arranged “on said housing,” Rozenkranc’s
trimming blade is mounted “inside” and not “on” the housing . The
arguments are without merit.
Claim 68 recites nothing about a “trimming assembly,” much less
where the trimming assembly is located. Claim 69 recites a trimming
assembly but does not recite that the trimming assembly is “on the housing”
as Appellant asserts. Instead, claim 69 requires only that the trimming
assembly is connected to the housing.
We reject Appellant’s contention that the term “on said housing”
restricts the location of the trimming assembly to the exterior of the housing
and excludes a location of the trimming assembly that is interior to the
housing. The word “on” has not been specially defined in Appellant’s
specification. Appellant also does not contend that the term is a technical
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

11

term of art with an established and well known meaning to those working in
the art of shaving apparatuses. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term in the English language, as would be understood by one with ordinary
skill in the context of Appellant’s invention, is applicable. Also, during
examination, claim terms are properly given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We have
no reason to construe “on” as requiring a location on the exterior. The
trimming assembly can be “on” the housing even if it is fixedly attached to
the interior or underside of the housing. Note that a dictionary definition of
“on” as an adverb is: “in or into a position of being attached to or covering a
surface.” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/on). The trimming assembly can be attached to any
surface of the housing, including an interior surface and be reasonably
deemed “on” the housing. This is different from the case of lose items
placed inside a container, which are not fixed to any surface of the container.
Appellant states that an “assembly” must include a plurality of parts
and therefore the claimed “trimming assembly” cannot be met by the
disclosure in Rozenkranc of just a trimming blade. In that regard, Appellant
points out that its own specification discloses in Figure 13 a trimming
assembly 30 comprising a blade carrier 502 and a trimming blade 504
mounted thereon. Even assuming that an assembly must have a plurality of
parts, however, it does not have to have precisely what Appellants discloses
as a preferred embodiment in its own specification, i.e., a blade carrier 502
in the form of a cartridge. Preferred embodiments should not be read into
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

12

claims which are broader in scope. KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Appellant’s argument about Rozenkranc’s not disclosing a “trimming
assembly” but just a trimming blade is misplaced. Rozenkranc is a patent
disclosure and its drawings are not precise engineering blueprints used to
manufacture a shaving apparatus. While the drawing in Rozenkranc’s
Figure 1 shows a trimming blade 4, we agree with this determination of the
Examiner (Ans. 13:1-2): “Rozenkranc does not disclose how the trimming
blade or the primary blades are held onto the housing, but they are inherently
held onto the housing somehow.” In other words, one with ordinary skill in
the art looking at Rozenkranc’s Figure 1 would have understood that the
primary shaving blades 3 and the trimming blade 4 are all somehow
mounted on the housing. One with ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the trimming blade together with its inherent mounting
means constitutes a trimming assembly. Thus, Rozenkranc would have
reasonably suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art a trimming
assembly including the trimming blade.
Alternatively, the Examiner correctly reasoned that the platform
shown in Figure 1 of Rozenkranc, to which the trimming blade 4 is mounted,
together with the trimming blade 4, are reasonably regarded as collectively
forming a trimming blade assembly. It is also evident that the platform is
mounted on the housing of the shaving head cartridge 2. In that connection,
Figure 1 of Rozenkranc is again reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

13

For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of any error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The rejection of claims 52, 67, 68, and 69 as obvious
over Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir is sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70
as Obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542,
Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, Shreir, Brown, and Magrab

This rejection involves claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70. Except for
claims 58-60 and 70, the additional limitations of which the Examiner has
accounted for by reliance on Brown, Apprille ‘542, and Magrab, the
rejection is the same as the rejection discussed above of claims 52 and 67-69
as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir. For
reasons already stated above, we are not persuaded of any error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 52 and 67-69.
Hereinbelow, we discuss claims 58-60 and 70. Claim 58 depends on
claim 52. Claim 59 depends on claim 58. Claim 60 depends on claim 59.
Claim 70 depends on claim 69. Claims 58 and 70 recite that the sacrificial
member is a clip that secures the trimming assembly to the housing. Claim
59 recites a pair of clips disposed adjacent the side surfaces of the housing.
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

14

Claim 60 recites that the clips are spaced from the side surfaces and extend
through openings in the housing.
The Examiner determined that metal clips are known elements
commonly used in the art to hold blades onto a housing. (Ans. 13:4-5).
That determination is supported by Apprille ‘542 which describes using
metal clips to retain shaving blades on the housing 16 of a shaving
cartridge 14 (Apprille ‘542 2:56-59), and has not been disputed by
Appellant. Apprille ‘816 also discloses using clips to hold a guard assembly
to the cartridge housing. (Apprille ‘816 5:44-50). On these facts, it would
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a metal clip to
secure a trimming assembly to the housing of a shaving apparatus. Mere
obvious to try is not sufficient for a conclusion of obviousness, but trying
with a reasonable expectation of success is sufficient, as it is the case here.
Given that any metal structure other than the protected metal elements
can serve as the sacrificial member acting as sacrificial anode to the cathode
that is constituted by the protected metal elements, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the
art to use the metal clip that would be holding the trimming assembly onto
the housing as the sacrificial anode. Appellant has offered no explanation
why one with ordinary skill would not have thought to use the metal clip
retaining the trimming assembly on the housing as the sacrificial anode. It is
metallic and it is already on the housing, which makes its selection and use
as sacrificial anode readily apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art who
would have recognized that a clip with slight corrosion would still be
effective in holding a trimming assembly to the housing. In that regard, note
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

15

that one with ordinary skill in the art possesses ordinary creativity and is not
an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Appellant asserts no separate argument with respect to claim 59 which
recites a pair of clips adjacent the side surfaces of the housing.
Nevertheless, Apprille ‘542 discloses such clips (Apprille ‘542 2:55-59):
“Metal clips 42 are secured at the respective sides of housing 16 inside of
raised edges 44 of side walls 30 in order to retain blades 18 within
housing 16 and to locate the cutting edges of spring-biased blades 18 at a
desired exposure when in the at-rest position.” Apprille ‘816 does the same
(Apprille ‘816 5:44-51): “Referring still to FIG. 9, it will be noted that the
assembly of the elongated guard member 10 to the cartridge structure 24 is
completed by the addition of a pair of clips 52 (only one of which is shown),
one at either end of the assembly. The clips 52 serve to retain the guard
member 10 in place as well as to retain the blades (not shown) in position in
similar fashion to those prior art patents cited herein.”
Claim 60 recites that the clips are spaced from the side surfaces and
extend through openings in the housing. In that connection, the Examiner
determined (Ans.11:3-5):
and Apprille ‘816 further discloses openings in the housing
(channel style openings as seen at 52 figure 9, and at either end
of the cartridge, but spaced from the side surfaces at figure 5).

Figure 9 of Apprille ‘816 is reproduced below. It shows a partial end
view on one side of the cross sectional of the shaving cartridge 24:
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

16

Appellant argues that elements 52 referred to by the Examiner are
actually clips, not openings in the housing, which help to retain guard
member 10 and blades in position. We agree and note the description of
clips 52 in column 5, lines 44-51 of Apprille ‘816. However, it is apparent
that the Examiner is referring to the opening occupied by element 52 rather
than element 52 itself. Figure 9 as shown above does illustrate clip 52 (one
on either side of the housing) extending through an opening in the housing.
The space it occupies is an opening in the housing. Claim 60 does not
require the opening to be at or on the exterior surface of the housing. If it
does, then Apprille ‘542 in Figure 2, reproduced below, discloses clips 42 on
either side of the housing which extend through a respective such opening
on the exterior surface of the housing:
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

17

Appellant asserts several arguments against the reliance on Brown’s
teachings with respect to the claim feature of claim 60 on clips extending
through an opening in the housing and on the combinability of the teachings
to Apprille ‘816 and Apprille ‘542. We need not reach those arguments
because Brown is not necessary for the rejection. The “openings in the
housing” limitation of claim 60 is already met by reliance on either
Apprille ‘816 or Apprille ‘542. The Examiner merely alternatively relied on
Brown.
Appellant argues that Apprille ‘816 and Apprille ‘542 only have one
cutting region and do not have a trimming assembly as is required by
claim 52, much less a second cutting region spaced from the first. Appellant
also argues that Apprille ‘816 and Apprille ‘542 do not disclose a metal
component spaced from the cutting region, which is in contact with a
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

18

sacrificial member as is required by claim 67. Both of these arguments are
without merit, as the Examiner did not rely on Apprille ‘816 or
Apprille ‘542 to account for either a trimming assembly or a metal
component. The teaching of a trimming assembly stems from Rozenkranc
and the teaching of a metal component to which a sacrificial member is
connected in addition to the protected blades stems from Shreir and either
Fischer or Kurr. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of any error in the
rejection of claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70 as obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542,
Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, Shreir, Magrab, and Brown is sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 52, 58-62, and 67-70
over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542, Rozenkranc,
Kurr, Fischer, Shreir, Brown, Magrab, and Prochaska

This rejection involves claims 52, 58-62, and 67-70. Except for
claims 61 and 62, the additional limitations of which the Examiner has
accounted for by reliance on Prochaska, the rejection is the same as the
rejection discussed above of claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70 as obvious over
Apprille ‘816, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir. For reasons already
stated above, we are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70.
Hereinafter, we discuss claims 61 and 62. Claim 61 depends on
claim 60 and recites that the trimming assembly includes a blade carrier that
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

19

includes a pair of openings configured to receive the clips. The clips are the
pair of clips set forth in claim 59 and are disposed adjacent the side surfaces
of the housing. Claim 62 depends on claim 61 and recites that the blade
carrier of the trimming assembly is formed of stainless steel.
Figure 2 of Prochaska illustrates a first shaving blade in its razor
cartridge and Figure 4 of Prochaska illustrates a second shaving blade in its
razor cartridge. Both figures are reproduced below:

The Examiner refers to rearward section 63 on the first blade as the
blade carrier required by Appellant’s claim 61, and rearward section 93 on
the second blade as the blade carrier required by Appellant’s claim 61. That
is incorrect. Sections 63 and 93 are portions of the blade itself and cannot be
reasonably regarded as a “blade carrier” in an assembly in the context of
Appellant’s specification. In pertinent part, for example, Prochaska states
(Prochaska 5:38-46):
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

20

As depicted in FIG. 2, the first blade 60 has a forward
section 61 and a rearward section 63. The first blade 60
includes securing apertures 66 which align with the securing
apertures 40 of the blade seat 22 so as to allow the staking
pins 142 to pass through the securing apertures 66 of the first
blade 60, thereby securing the first blade 60 to the blade
cartridge 10.

Prochaska provides a similar description for rearward section 93 on the
second blade. (Prochaska 6:11-18).
Furthermore, we think the staking pins 142 in Prochaska, referred to
in the above-quoted text and which extend through the securing apertures to
attach the shaving blades to the housing, cannot reasonably be regarded as
clips. The Examiner relied on the staking pins for satisfying the claim
requirement of clips being received within openings in a blade carrier
without satisfactorily explaining why a staking pin has the structure of a clip.
It is not enough that a staking pin in some instances can provide the function
of a clip. Appellant has specifically claimed the structure of a clip. The
Examiner also states that (Ans. 25:10-11): “[s]ending a thin metal clip
through a thin hole in a blade carrier is functionally equivalent to sending a
plastic rivet through a larger opening in a blade carrier.” That is not
necessarily so and even if true it does not support that a staking pin has the
structure of a clip.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 61 and 62 cannot be
sustained. We do, however, sustain the rejection of claims 52, 58-60, and
67-70.
ORDER
The rejection of claim 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Apprille ‘816, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-007475
Application 11/375,661

21

The rejection of claims 52, and 67-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Apprille ‘816, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer, and Shreir is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 52, 58-60, and 67-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer,
Shreir, Magrab, and Brown is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 52, 58-62, 67-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Apprille ‘816, Apprille ‘542, Rozenkranc, Kurr, Fischer,
Shreir, Magrab, Brown, and Prochaska is affirmed with respect to claims 52,
58-60, and 67-70, and reversed with respect to claims 61 and 62..
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ak