Appeal No. 1997-2027
Application 08/417,419
sustained.
Remand to the Examiner
The presently appealed claims are directed to a method of
controlling the dose of dentifrice whereas the appealed claims
in the earlier mentioned parent application 07/924,139 were
directed to a toothbrush for controlling the dose of
dentifrice. Notwithstanding this difference, we are struck by
the similarity between the presently appealed claims and those
involved in the appeal in the parent application. In
particular, the merits panel in the prior appeal found that
the claims on appeal therein
are completely silent as to whether the remaining
bristle ends on the toothbrush head are covered or
not covered by dentifrice. Thus, as the examiner
has correctly observed, there is no limitation as to
the total amount of dentifrice that can be deposited
on all
of the bristle ends on the toothbrush head taken as a
whole. That is, insofar as the claims on appeal are
concerned, all of the bristle ends (including the
bristles of both colors in claim 1 . . . ) could be
covered with dentifrice and the limitations of these
claims still be satisfied. [Prior decision, page 6.]
In that at least independent claim 16 on appeal here also is
silent as to whether or not toothpaste is applied to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007