Ex Parte Cloke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

11653054 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CINZIA SIMONIS CLOKE, DAREN MARK HOWELL, and
KEVIN JAMES WAIN1
____________

Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JAMES B.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a razor cartridge measurement
apparatus comprising a first measuring device and a second measuring
device for measuring characteristics of the razor cartridge. See generally

1 The Gillette Company is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054

2
Abstract; Spec., pg. 2, ll. 3-7. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
1. A razor cartridge measurement apparatus comprising:

a first device for measuring a first load applied to a razor cartridge
in a first direction and a second load applied to said razor cartridge
in a second direction different than said first direction; and

a second device for measuring an angle at which said razor
cartridge is positioned relative to a predetermined direction.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orloff (US 2004/0098862 A1; issued May 27, 2004) and
Frank (US 5,493,919; issued Feb. 27, 1996). Ans. 3-5.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orloff, Frank, and MacArthur (US 3,383,924; issued May
21, 1968). Id. at 5.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ORLOFF AND FRANK
ISSUE
Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Orloff would have taught or suggested a razor cartridge measurement
apparatus comprising both a first device and a second device?

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed
October 16, 2009; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 20,
2010.
Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054

3
ANALYSIS
In Figure 3, Orloff depicts a sensor 21 that measures externally
applied forces on the blades 11, 12, which forces are transferred to the razor
system’s handle 22. Ans. 3 (citing Orloff, ¶ [0036]). In Figure 10, Orloff
depicts another embodiment of the razor system, in which an angular rate
sensor 46 senses the yaw, pitch, and roll of the blades. Id. (citing Orloff, ¶¶
[0039], [0088]). Consequently, the Examiner finds that Orloff teaches or
suggests a first device, e.g., sensor 21, that measures a first load applied to
the razor cartridge, and a second device, e.g., angular rate sensor 46, that
measures an angle at which said razor cartridge is positioned relative to a
predetermined direction. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that Orloff teaches or
suggests all of the limitations of representative claim 1, except that Orloff
does not teach or suggest that the first device measures “a second load
applied to said razor cartridge in a second direction different than said first
direction.” Id. The Examiner, however, cites Frank as teaching or
suggesting this limitation in concluding that claim 1 would have been
obvious. Id. (citing Frank, col. 2, ll. 20-29).
Appellants argue that:
Orloff discloses two (2) different razors each having a single
sensor. Orloff does not disclose a single razor having two sensors.
Therefore, when combining Orloff and Frank, a person of ordinary
skill would simply replace either sensor 21 in the razor of Figure 3 or
sensor 46 in the razor of Figure 10 with the force measuring system of
Frank. The result would be a razor with just the force measuring
system of Frank.

Br. 3-4 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would combine the single sensors depicted in the separate embodiments of
Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054

4
Orloff’s razor system in a single measurement apparatus. Ans. 6. First, the
operation of sensor 21 and angular rate sensor 46 are described by Orloff.
Appellants do not argue that these sensors operate differently than the first
and second devices of claim 1 or that combining the teachings of Orloff and
Frank would not teach or suggest a first device according to claim 1. Br. 4
(“The result [of the combination] would be a razor with just the force
measuring system of Frank.”). Thus, Orloff’s sensors provide predictable
solutions to particular measurement needs. Second, as the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). As was the case in KSR, Orloff teaches several known means for
measuring different characteristics of a razor system. See Orloff, ¶ [0031].
Therefore, given that the finite number of sensors disclosed in Orloff
provides predicable solutions to identified needs, we find that the Examiner
did not err in combining the sensors taught in the embodiments depicted in
Orloff’s Figures 3 and 10 in a single measurement apparatus.3
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, we

3 We further note that Orloff states that “[t]he present invention provides or a
wet shave razor system having one or more sensors disposed therein which
receive and produce a response to the externally applied forces encountered
by a razor during shaving.” Orloff, ¶ [0031] (emphasis added); see also
Spec., pg. 1, l. 20 (“It is known to incorporate sensors into razors.”;
emphasis added). The Examiner did not rely upon either this portion of
Orloff or Appellants’ statement regarding the state of the relevant art to
support the combination of two sensors in a single razor system, but both
this portion of Orloff and Appellants’ statement are strong evidence of the
lack of error in the Examiner’s finding.
Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054

5
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Further, because
Appellants do not separately argue against the obviousness rejection of
claims 2-11, we also sustain the rejection of those claims which fall with
claim 1.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ORLOFF, FRANK, AND
MACARTHUR
Each of claims 12-14 depends from independent claim 1, via
intervening claims 7 and 8. Br. 6-7. The Examiner acknowledges that
Orloff and Frank fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of these
dependent claims. Ans. 5. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that MacArthur
teaches or suggests the additional limitations of these dependent claims and
that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would be have an apparent
reason to combine Orloff, Frank, and MacArthur to achieve the claimed
invention. Id. As noted above, Appellants argue that Orloff and Frank fail
to teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1, from which
claims 12-14, and that MacArthur fails to teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 1 that allegedly are missing from Orloff and Frank. Br. 4. Because
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Orloff and Frank and
because Appellants do not argue that MacArthur fails to teach or suggest the
limitations added to claim 1 by these dependent claims, we also sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12-14.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-14 under § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-007359
Application 11/653,054

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk