Appeal No. 96-2612
Application 08/137,530
Claim 10 will fall with claim 9, since appellant
does not present any reasons as to why he believes claim 10
would be separately patentable from claim 9.
As for claim 11, the examiner has consistently main-
tained (answer, pp. 3 to 4):
The use of shaving aids with disposable
cartridges and there [sic: their] associ-
ated advantages is old and well known in
the shaving art. Applying such a teaching
to Iten to improve shaving quality would
appear to be obvious since one would want
to improve the shaving quality of Iten as
much as is reasonably possible.
Appellant argues that Iten “does not teach or suggest the
inclusion of a shaving aid on a razor” (brief, page 3), but
does not dispute the examiner’s finding, supra, that the use
of such aids is old and well known. The finding thus stands 8
unrebutted, and in view thereof we consider that it would have
8Nor does it appear that appellant could reasonably
dispute this finding, in view of the disclosure of razors with
shaving aids in such references as PCT Application WO
92/15430, filed with appellant’s Information Disclosure
Statement on March 9, 1995.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007