Appeal No. 97-1810 Page 12
Application No. 08/321,262
The appellant has not provided any argument with respect
to claim 22. The appellant has grouped claim 22 (brief, p. 3)
with claims 23, 26 and 28 to 30 and has provided arguments
relative to those claims.
While the appellant has not argued claim 22, we have
reviewed the applied prior art and find that the subject
matter of claim 22 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of
Zagouris' teachings of a single-use toothbrush contained
within a package having a pull-tab to separate the package
into two sections.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 adds to parent claim 21 the limitation
that the distal end of the handle portion is curved upwardly
such that a thumb fits within the curve and a middle finger of
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007