Appeal No. 97-1810 Page 7
Application No. 08/321,262
paragraph and page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs). Munoz
Saiz teaches (see page 5, second paragraph) that
the removable wall of the container serves as a seal
until connection with the brush head body is made, since
this exchangeable part is purchased individually in
stores.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Merrill and claim 21,
it is our opinion that the only difference is the limitation
that the tooth cleaning apparatus includes "means for sealing
the opening for subsequent manual unsealing."
In applying the test for obviousness , we reach the 5
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007