Appeal No. 1999-0739
Application 08/747,663
pointed out by appellant (brief, page 7), the claimed
invention, when considered as a whole, is not a toothbrush and
has no such capability, but is intended only for cleaning the
tongue and is so structured as to achieve this result. By
contrast, the device seen in Figure 5 of Curtis is expressly
described as being a toothbrush with flexible bristles and is
clearly intended for an entirely different use, which use
requires that device to have structural characteristics that
are distinctly different from those of appellant’s claimed
tongue cleaning device.
Since the teachings and suggestions found in Curtis
would not have made the subject matter as a whole of claims 1
and 12 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
It follows that the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6
and 8 through 11 (which depend from claim 1) and of claims 13
through 17 (which depend from claim 12) under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Curtis alone will also not be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007