Appeal No. 98-0606
Application 08/553,603
determined” (answer, page 3). On page 2 of the brief,
appellants state that a proposed amendment after final
rejection was submitted to address this claim deficiency. As
indicated by the examiner in an advisory letter (Paper No. 8),
and as acknowledged
by appellants on page 2 of the brief, the proposed amendment
was not entered. Appellants have made no substantive argument
with respect to this rejection.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
still before us, and claim 14 does not include the revision
set forth in the unentered proposed amendment. Under these
circumstances, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection under
§ 112 since appellants have failed to point out any error in
the rejection.
Rejection (2)
The sole issue with respect to the § 102 rejection is
whether the word “toothbrush” appearing in the preamble of
each of the claims distinguishes over Wells. The examiner
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007