Appeal No. 1998-2360
Application No. 08/604,976
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8 and 10 through 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilder in view of Welsh. The examiner=s position regarding
this rejection follows:
Gilder shows a razor with all the recited
limitations except for the specific size of the spans
between parts, nor [sic] the specific exposures of the
first and third blades.
Welsh teaches that it is well known for razors
having multiple blades to have the amount of exposure
increase as you go from the first blade to the last
blade (lines 31-33, column 4). Welsh also teaches
that the first blade can have a negative exposure
substantially equal to -0.04mm (lines 52, 53, column
4) and for the last blade to have a positive exposure
less than .2mm (lines 43, 44, column 4). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have modified Gilder by making the first blade have
a negative exposure and the third blade have a
positive exposure such that the exposure increases as
you go from the first blade to the last blade, as
taught by Welsh, in order to achieve the "highly
satisfactory results" mentioned by Welsh (line 38,
column 4).
We cannot sustain the examiner=s rejection of the
appealed claims.2 Our reasons for this determination
follow.
2 In the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of appellants= specification, blade units having more than two
blades (e.g., three blades) are discussed. Although it appears that these blade units having more than two
blades constitute prior art, there is no disclosure in appellants= specification regarding the exposures for
blades themselves. In view of our reversal of the examiner=s rejection, it may be prudent for the examiner
to inquire about the exposures of the blades in these three-blade units upon return of this application to the
technology center.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007