Appeal No. 98-0606
Application 08/553,603
improvement to a toothbrush, and not merely to an improvement
in the field of brushes in general. Bearing in mind these
circumstances, it is our view that when the appealed claims
are read in light of the specification, they depend for their
completeness on the preamble recitation “toothbrush” such
that, in this instance, the term “toothbrush” is a limitation
on the appealed claims and is not merely a statement of
intended use. In other words, the term “toothbrush” in the
preambles of the appealed claims has the effect of cutting
back on the scope of the claims such that every brush that
literally meets the terms of the body of an appealed claim
does not necessarily anticipate that claim.
Wells, the alleged anticipatory reference, pertains to an
improved stapleset brush. Wells states that stapleset brushes
“are designed for a wide variety of uses, including hand use,
hand-operated power tools and automatic power brushing
equipment” (column 1, lines 6-9). The contour of the plate 1
of the brush “can be varied to meet the desired application”
(column 1, lines
43-46). The plate 1 and backing element 1 of the brush are
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007