Appeal No. 1999-2628 Page 3
Application No. 08/652,723
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the respective3
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we shall
sustain the examiner's rejection.
We note, at the outset, that the appellant's brief states, on pages 3 and 4, that claims 15-
17, 23 and 24 stand or fall together. Therefore, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we
have selected claim 16 as the representative claim to decide this appeal, with claims 15, 17, 23
and 24 standing or falling therewith.
Maggiore, the primary reference relied upon by the examiner, discloses a hair cutting
guide apparatus for clamping and holding a section of hair in spaced relationship from the scalp
for cutting purposes. The hair cutting guide apparatus comprises two jaw members 10, 12,
each including a clamping portion 16 and a handle member 36. A spring member 60 applies
pressure to the handle members 36 to urge the clamping portions 16 together. The examiner
(answer, pages 4-5) finds that Maggiore discloses the subject matter of claim 16, with the
exception of a plurality of comb-teeth on the first elongated leg and an elongated channel on the
second elongated leg superposed over the plurality of comb-teeth, as required by the claim.
3In claims 1, 15 and 16, line 2, it appears that "being" should be deleted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007