Appeal No. 2006-1474
Application 10/219,095
at least one razor blade integrally attached to the head portion, wherein said
head portion and razor blade have a combined width that is less than or equal
to half the width of least one portion of the handle.
What is immediately apparent is that claim 1 now recites a razor comprising, inter alia, a
“head portion and razor blade having a combined width which is less than or equal to three-
eighths of an inch” and an arrangement wherein “said handle has a handle width that is
greater than twice as wide as said combined width.” Claim 4, directed to the embodiment
seen in Figure 5 of the application drawings, now defines a razor wherein “the head portion
and razor blade have a combined width which is less than or equal to three-eighths of an
inch and wherein the cartridge has a width that is less than half a width of the handle.”
Independent claim 15 now recites a razor “wherein said head portion and razor blade have
a combined width that is less than or equal to half the width of at least some portion of the
handle.”
We find nothing in the originally filed specification of the present application that
expresses any dimension for the “combined width” of the razor head portion and blade. Nor
do we find any statement whatsoever concerning the width of the razor’s handle relative to
“said combined width,” as now set forth in claim 1 on appeal. Similarly, we find nothing in
the originally filed application regarding a cartridge, like that recited in claim 4, coupled to
the head portion and carrying at least one razor blade wherein the “combined width” for the
head portion and razor blade forming a part of the cartridge is less than or equal to three-
eighths of an inch. The same is true for the recitation in claim 4 relating to a cartridge that
has a width “that is less than half a width of the handle.” Likewise, support for the recitation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007