Appeal No. 2004-1058
Application 09/584,053
disclosure that the razor blade functions to either shave or trim
(cut) hair or a beard. The examiner’s position here rests on an
assertion (see page 6 in the answer) that the appellants’ blade
is similar to the blade disclosed by Deneen. The appellants’
blade, however, has an edge 34 defined by planar surfaces 36 and
38 which meet at an angle B of between approximately 30° and 50°,
preferably approximately 40° (see page 5 in the specification and
Figure 5 in the drawings). Clearly, such blade edge is not
nearly as sharp as the razor blade edge disclosed by Deneen.
Thus, the examiner’s proposition that the two blade edges are
comparable is without merit.
For the above reasons, the examiner’s determination that
Deneen is anticipatory with respect to the subject matter recited
in independent claims 12, 24 and 28 is not well founded.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 12, 24 and 28, and dependent claims
13 through 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 through 27 and 29, as being
anticipated by Deneen.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007