Appeal No. 2001-1772 Page 7
Application No. 09/059,699
conclusion that the spacer is separate from the platform member, and it is a portion of the
spacer that is positioned between the first and second blades.
It therefore is our opinion that a fair reading of claim 1 on the basis of the explicit
language recited therein taken in the light of the specification leads to the conclusion that
claim 1 requires the presence of platform member that is separate from the spacer. This
being the case, the structure disclosed by Ferraro does not meet the terms of the claim,
and we will not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of dependent
claims 2-9.
Independent claim 10 sets forth the invention in more detail, but still contains the
language we focused on above regarding the platform member and the spacer. The
rejection of this claim and of dependent claims 11-14,17-22 and 24-26 is not sustained for
the same reasons as were expressed above with regard to claim 1 et.al.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Claim 16, which depends from claim 10, stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Ferraro in view of Booth, the latter being cited for its teaching of providing a
lubricating applicator on the cap member of a shaving cartridge.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007