Appeal 2007-1666
Application 10/132,904
mixture (Appeal Br. 5). Again, underlying this argument is how the guard is
defined relative to the remaining structure of the cartridge 10 in Yin. We note that
Yin refers to the multi-component element mounted on the rigid base 22 as the
“guard structure 4” (FF 8), rather than in the singular, “a guard”, as claimed. This
thus leads to our interpretation that the composite material or guard (24, 36, 46,
and 52) in Yin is one component of the collective guard structure 4.
Claims 1 and 19 require that the guard is attached to the frame. As found
supra (FF 3), in at least two embodiments, the composite material or guards 24 and
36 in Yin are attached to the frame or base structure 22 by adhesive.
Appellant attempts to further distinguish Yin by the claim limitation of “the
integrally formed and substantially uniform mixture is the initial skin-contacting
surface of the guard” (Appeal Br. 6-7). We reject this argument.
Preliminarily, we agree with the Appellant that the integrally formed and
substantially uniform mixture (24, 36, 46, 52) of Yin is not the initial skin-
contacting surface of the guard because Yin discloses that the “flexible fins 26, 38,
48, 58 engage the user’s skin first” (FF 5). However, this disclosure states that the
fins function only to: 1. stretch the skin to “pull on the shaving stubble” (FF 6), 2.
act as a squeegee (FF 6), and 3. provide a pleasant tactile sensation (FF 6). We
find that while these functions are desirable, they are not critical to cutting stubble
by the blades 3, 3 in Yin because it is the backstop 28 which defines a fixed
reference for the desirable exposure of the front blade 2 (FF 7), and not the fins.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013