Valerie Jean. Bradford et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 26, 2019

15193205 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)

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. 15/193,205 06/27/2016 Valerie Jean Bradford CM4267M 3225 27752 7590 08/26/2019 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1771 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2019 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 VALERIE JEAN BRADFORD, ALISON FIONA STEPHENS, and MARTIN STEPHEN WILLIAMSON ____________________ Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–7, 9–11, and 13–17.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application 15/193,205 (the “’205 Application”); the Final Office Action dated October 18, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated December 11, 2017 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed March 7, 2018 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer dated June 6, 2018 (“Ans.”). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, The Gillette Company LLC, also identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. 3 Appellant cancelled claims 8, 12, 18, and 19 after the Final Office Action. See Response After Final Rejection, dated November 6, 2017; Adv. Act. 1. Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 2 The invention relates to a lubricating member for razor cartridges. Spec. 1, l. 4. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A hair removal cartridge for a shaving razor having a front end and an opposing rear end, the hair removal cartridge comprising: at least one hair removal member positioned between said front end and said rear end; and at least one lubricating member, said lubricating member comprising a lubricating material comprising i) from about 1% to about 99% by weight of polyethylene oxide or polyethylene glycol and ii) from about 0.1% to about 70% by weight of a silicone polyether block copolymer wherein said silicone polyether block copolymer comprises from about 1 to about 50%, by weight of polyethylene oxide, from about 20% to about 90% by weight of polypropylene oxide and from about 1 to about 20% by weight of silicone. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Cassin US 2008/0081055 A1 Apr. 3, 2008 Stephens et al. (“Stephens”) US 2012/0090179 A1 Apr. 19, 2012 REJECTION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–7, 9–11, and 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stephens in view of Cassin. Final Act. 2–4. Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 3 OPINION Appellant argues the claims as a group. Br. 2–3. We select the sole independent claim, claim 1, as representative of the group. Claims 2–7, 9– 11, and 13–17 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Stephens teaches a hair removal cartridge as in claim 1, including a hair removal member (element (a) of claim 1) and a lubricating member (element (b) of claim 1). Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Stephens discloses a lubricating member comprising polyethylene oxide within the range claimed in element (b)(i) of claim 1. Id. at 2–3. Stephens discloses the lubricating member may comprise a silicone copolymer. Id. at 5. However, Stephens does not disclose inclusion of the claimed silicone polyether block copolymers (element (b)(ii) of claim 1). Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Cassin teaches a water-soluble anhydrous film comprising at least one water-soluble film-forming polymer and an oxyalkylenated polysiloxane. Id. Cassin specifically discloses Silwet polymers including Silwet L-7210, which the Examiner finds meets the limitations of element (b)(ii) of claim 1. Id. The Examiner identifies the table at page 16 of the Specification as supporting the finding. The table in the Specification discloses that Silwet L7210 comprises 15% w/w silicone, 65% w/w polypropylene oxide (PPO) and 20% w/w polyethylene oxide (PEO). Spec. 2, ll. 33–34 and 16 (table). The Examiner finds that Stephens discloses “the skin conditioning composition can comprise a shaving aid, which may release from the surface to provide improved shaving, and that the shaving aid can be a water-soluble polymer, including the claimed polyethylene oxide.” Ans. 4 (citing Stephens ¶¶ 37–38). Stephens also discloses leaching of the skin Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 4 conditioning composition (dissolution in water) from the skin engaging member during use. Id. (citing Stephens ¶ 31). The Examiner finds that Stephens’s water-soluble polymer is intended to dissolve in water during use, motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to improve dissolution of the water-soluble polymer during shaving. Id. The Examiner explains that the rejection does not contemplate using the entire film of Cassin as the lubricating member of the device, i.e., does not contemplate replacing Stephens’s lubricating member with Cassin’s water-soluble anhydrous film. Ans. 5. Instead, the rejection contemplates incorporating Cassin’s silicone polyether block copolymer into Stephens’s skin conditioning composition. Id. The Examiner notes that Stephens’s skin conditioning composition—which contains the water-soluble polymer—is contained in a carrier that provides controlled release of the skin conditioning composition. Id. (citing Stephens ¶¶ 13, 25, 31, 34). The skilled artisan would, therefore, expect inclusion of Cassin’s polysiloxane to promote dissolution of water-soluble polymer when exposed to water without causing immediate and complete dissolution of the water-soluble polymer. Id. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Stephens and Cassin. Br. 2–3. Specifically, Appellant argues that Stephens is directed to a hair removal device that is to be used repeated times before being discarded, thus the skin conditioning composition in Stephens would last over repeated occasions. Id. at 2. In contrast, Appellant argues, Cassin is directed to an anhydrous film designed to dissolve in less than 30 seconds. Id. Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not look to Cassin’s anhydrous films, designed to dissolve Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 5 completely in less than 30 seconds, for a lubricating member of a hair removal device intended for repeated use. Id. at 2–3. We disagree with Appellant. The rejection is not based on mere conclusory statements, but rather states “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner’s explanation of the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine the teaching of Stephens and Cassin is sufficient when an allowance is made for “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006): [W]e have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal – and even common-sensical – we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Appellant has not explained why the reasons articulated by the Examiner for combining the references is erroneous or unreasonable. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Appeal 2018-008179 Application 15/193,205 6 For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Stephens in view of Cassin. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–7, 9–11, and 13–17 as obvious over the cited prior art. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–7, 9–11, and 13–17 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