Appeal No. 98-2888
Application No. 29/044,927
several distinct differences between it and the claimed
design. As the appellants have pointed out, the Wooster
dental disk holder has two sleeves (6 and 8) mounted on the
handle (1), with all three components being of different
diameters, as opposed to the single sleeve on the handle of
the claimed design. In addition, the Wooster design includes
a disk (6a) on the distal end of the sleeve, which is not
present in the claimed design, and its disk holding portion
(2) is bowl-shaped, as opposed to the angular one of the
claimed design. In our opinion, these differences cause the
design characteristics of the Wooster dental disk holder not
to be basically the same as the claimed design.
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that Wooster were
considered to be a Rosen reference, it is our view that the
teachings of the two references would not have suggested the
application of the features of DuBe to the Wooster design, for
to do so would require wholesale revision of the Wooster
design. One of the two sleeves would have to be discarded,
along with the annular disk. And, the curved disk support
would have to be replaced with one having an angular
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007