2021003139 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

The Gillette Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2021

2021003139 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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. 15/235,019 08/11/2016 Hong Lu 14451 2008 27752 7590 12/02/2021 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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 mayer.jk@pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONG LU, STEPHEN CHARLES WITKUS, ALEXANDER STEPHEN FORTI, and HUIBIN GONG Appeal 2021-003139 Application 15/235,019 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 8–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Gillette Company LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003139 Application 15/235,019 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a handle for a razor. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A razor handle for a razor cartridge, the handle comprising: a head having a cartridge engaging end and an attachment end; a body having a front end and a rear end and comprising a first shell and a second shell that are releasably coupled together, wherein the front end is coupled with the attachment end; a cover layer at least partially surrounding the body; and a clip member coupled with the first shell and the second shell at the rear end of the body such that the first and second shells are held together at least partially by the clip member. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Oki US 1,584,319 Apr. 6, 1925 Baum US 1,617,563 Nov. 30, 1925 Rothermel US 1,710,113 Dec. 27, 1928 Lo US 4,837,892 June 13, 1989 Cook US 6,595,900 B1 July 22, 2003 Rosso US 8,205,341 B2 June 26, 2012 Gajria US 2013/0291390 A1 Nov. 7, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3 and 8–122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, and Baum. Final Act. 4. 2 The Examiner withdrew the inclusion of claims 4–7 as part of this rejection. Ans. 10. The Examiner also withdrew an indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–16 that was originally included in the Final Action. Id. Appeal 2021-003139 Application 15/235,019 3 Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, and Gajria. Final Act. 9–10. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, and Lo. Final Act. 10. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, Lo, and Cook. Final Act. 11. OPINION Rosso All of the Examiner’s rejections rely on Rosso as the primary reference. Claim 1 requires “a first shell and a second shell that are releasably coupled together.” In Rosso, what the Examiner finds to be the first and second shells are held together by rivets 38. Ans. 10. According to the Examiner, this meets the “releasably coupled together” limitation because “a rivet can be drilled out or otherwise removed, enabling the two halves of the handle to be ‘releasably coupled together.’” Ans. 13. As Appellant correctly points out, “a rivet is generally understood to be a permanent means of attachment.” Appeal Br. 8. And the Examiner concedes that this is true. See Ans. 13. We do not agree that drilling out a rivet, as suggested by the Examiner, turns an assembly with a permanent rivet into a releasably coupled assembly. Had the Examiner found a piece of art disclosing that a releasable fastener was an acceptable substitute for a permanent rivet in such a device we could see such a rejection being acceptable, but simply destroying the fastening device to uncouple two pieces does not, in our opinion, fall within a reasonable interpretation of Appeal 2021-003139 Application 15/235,019 4 something that is releasably coupled. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 8–16 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 8–12 103 Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum 1–3, 8–12 13 103 Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, Gajria 13 14 103 Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, Lo 14 15, 16 103 Rosso, Rothermel, Oki, Baum, Lo, Cook 15, 16 Overall Outcome 1–3, 8–16 REVERSED