Ex Parte Clipstone et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0263                                                            
          Application No. 10/379,264                                                      

                       a coating of polytetrafluoroethylene on the coating                
          of a carbon-containing material;                                                
                       wherein there is no interlayer between the coating                 
          consisting of the carbon-containing material and the cutting                    
          edge.                                                                           
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                       
          evidence of obviousness:                                                        
          Goel et al.                    5,795,648               Aug. 18, 1998            
          (Goel)                                                                          
          Wang                           6,331,332               Dec. 18, 2001            
          Clipstone et al.               6,684,513               Feb.  3, 2004            
          (Clipstone)                                    (filed Feb. 29, 2000)            
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a razor blade                 
          comprising a coating consisting of a carbon-containing material,                
          e.g., a diamond-like carbon, and chromium as a dopant.  The                     
          appealed claims set forth that there is no interlayer between the               
          coating and the cutting edge of the razor blade.                                
               Appealed claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 22 and 23 stand rejected                  
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goel in view                
          of Wang.  Claims 6, 9, 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of                   
          references further in view of Clipstone.                                        
               Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably               
          specific to any particular claim on appeal.  Accordingly, all the               
          appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 2.  Also, we                  

                                           -2-                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007