The Gillette Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2022

2021001645 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022)

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. 16/506,002 07/09/2019 Andrew Charles Nicholas 14415D 8404 27752 7590 03/04/2022 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER PROCTOR, CACHET I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2022 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 ANDREW CHARLES NICHOLAS Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 21-26.3 We affirm. 1 The following documents are of record: Specification filed July 9, 2019 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Dec. 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) and Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 10-11) filed Aug. 7, 2020; Examiner’s Answer dated Nov. 10, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Jan. 4, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Gillette Company LLC. Appeal Br. 2. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER “The invention relates to razors, and more particularly to razor cartridges having razor blades with printed objects or printed portions.” Spec. 1:4-5. Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A razor cartridge comprising a plurality of blades, each with a first side with at least one printed object printed on at least one of said first sides thereof, wherein the at least one printed object has a height dimension of from about 0.04mm to about 0.60mm as measured in a direction perpendicular to one of said sides of the razor blade and wherein said at least one printed object comprises a plurality of solid objects of one or more printed dots. Appeal Br. 10. REJECTIONS Claims 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. claims 21-25 over Zhuk (US 2007/0062047 A1, pub. Mar. 22, 2007); and 2. claim 26 over Zhuk in view of Gilder (US 2002/0144404 A1, pub. Oct. 10, 2002). OPINION The Appellant argues limitations common to independent claims 21 and 23, which are the only independent claims at issue in this appeal. The Appellant asserts that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Zhuk discloses or suggests a printed object comprising “one or more printed dots” having “a height dimension of from about 0.04mm to about 0.60mm” (claims 21, 23). Appeal Br. 6. The Appellant argues, “nowhere does Zhuk disclose Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 3 that the polymer coating bumps comprise ‘one or more printed dots.’” Id. 6-7. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the record supports the Examiner’s finding that this claim limitation reads on Zhuk’s Figure 2 embodiment in which polymer coating 12′ is configured as a series of circular shapes positioned over razor blade 10′’s upper surface 14′, the shapes having a height that overlaps the Appellant’s claimed range. Ans. 7-8; see Final Act. 3-4; Zhuk ¶¶ 6, 17. In support of its argument that “the Examiner impermissibly equates Appellant’s ‘printed objects’ with Zhuk’s films,” the Appellant directs us to Specification pages 11-13 and Figures 4 and 4a for a detailed description of the printed dots. Reply Br. 1. The Appellant also quotes Specification page 12, lines 15-18: [I]t is understood that the size, number, spacing of printed dots 48 and also the number or layers of solid objects 46 which make up the printed object 34 all play a role in the control [of] the skin bulge of the user’s skin during the shave, and allow for better glide, rinsability, and affect wear rate of the printed object. Reply Br. 3. According to the Appellant, the advantage of the “invention which was not known by those in the prior art and thus could not have been predicted is the combination of the novel type of printed object (e.g., . . . a plurality of solid objects of one or more printed dots) having a much larger height than that preferred in Zhuk.” Id. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error for several reasons. First, other than the printed object’s height dimension, independent claims 21 and 23 do not recite any of the factors that provide the alleged advantages, e.g., the printed dots’ number or spacing (see Spec. 12:15-18). Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 4 Second, as to the claimed height dimension, the Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Zhuk discloses a range of printed object heights that overlaps the Appellant’s claimed range, but the Appellant has not provided evidence of criticality in the claimed range. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious.”). As to the Appellant’s argument that Zhuk’s preferred height range is lower than the claimed range, “[a] statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.” Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that an Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention, . . . or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art”). Third, the evidence does not support the Appellant’s contention that Zhuk’s pad printing process “cannot create printed objects such as those shown and described in Appellant’s application (e.g., three-dimensional)” (Reply Br. 3). Zhuk discloses that when shapes are formed on the razor blade using a mask, “the thickness of the mask can be varied to modify the [shapes’] thickness[es] . . . .” Zhuk ¶ 27. Because Zhuk identifies pad printing as an alternative technique for applying the shapes, the ordinary artisan would have reasonably understood that pad printing could also form circular shapes of varying thicknesses, i.e., heights. Moreover, the Specification does not indicate that a specific type of apparatus is required to Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 5 form the printed dots of the inventive razor blade or cartridge. See Spec. 13:10-11 (“The printed dots may be applied with any suitable type of device including, but not limited to print heads, nozzles, and other types of material deposition devices.”).4 Zhuk’s circular shapes also function in the same manner described in the Specification, which supports a finding that Zhuk’s circular shapes are substantially the same structurally as the claimed printed dots. Compare Zhuk ¶¶ 16-17 (disclosing that the height differential between upper surfaces of the circular shapes and razor blade 10′’s uncoated upper surface 14′, and spacing between the circular shapes, “creates a space that can be used to manage the skin bulge [in front of the blade edge] as the blade passes over the skin of a user”), and ¶ 2 (“This space can help to improve the way the blade, and ultimately a shaving cartridge that includes the blade, glides over the skin of the user, which in turn can reduce the number of nicks and cuts incurred while shaving.”), with Spec. 12:15-18 (“[I]t is understood that the size [and] spacing of printed dots 48 . . . play a role in the control the skin bulge of the user’s skin during the shave, and allow for better glide . . . .”). In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21 and 23. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the 4 Because a preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s finding that Zhuk describes printed dots as claimed, we need not consider whether the term “printed” is purely a process recitation that does not limit the scope of claims 21 and 23. Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 6 basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise have been obvious.”). The Appellant also argues the rejection of claims 24 and 25, contending that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Zhuk discloses or suggests a razor cartridge “wherein one of said plurality of razor blades has a larger printed object than any adjacent blade” (claim 24) and “wherein a centrally located blade has a largest printed object than any of the other blades” (claim 25). The Examiner found (Final Act. 5), and the Appellant does not dispute (see Appeal Br. 8) that Zhuk teaches, “the positioning of the polymer coating is dependent upon various factors such as the number of blades, the nature of the coating, the degree of the coating, the intended use of the razor, etc.” (Final Act. 5 (citing Zhuk ¶ 26)). The Examiner thus found that the ordinary artisan would have understood that “the placement and amount of polymer applied to the blades is a result effective variable,” and modified Zhuk’s razor cartridge “to include the claimed placement of the printed material in relation to the blade placement through routine experimentation in order to optimize the safety of the blade and reduce the possibility of nicks and cuts occurring.” Final Act. 5. The Appellant has not explained why these findings are erroneous or unreasonable, or provided evidence of unexpected results in the claimed placement and size of the printed object. See Ans. 8. For the above reasons, we are not convinced of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25. The Appellant does not separately argue claim 22. Nor does the Appellant argue the separate rejection of dependent claim 26. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 21-26 for the reasons discussed above and in the Answer. Appeal 2021-001645 Application 16/506,002 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21-25 103 Zhuk 21-25 26 103 Zhuk, Gilder 26 Overall Outcome: 21-26 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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