Appeal No. 96-0674
Application 08/533,287
simply as an attempt to make the prospect of using the article
for its intended purpose, i.e.,
dental hygiene, more enticing to a child. That being the
case, we find the motivation put forth by the examiner to be
unpersuasive.5
Zandberg suggests a one piece toothbrush. Neither
Schleich nor Guest provide any teaching, suggestion or
motivation for making the toothbrush shown by Zandberg in two
parts or for combining Zandberg's toothbrush with a separate
handle portion in the form of an animate character. That
being the case, we find no motivation in the applied
references for applying the specific twist and lock connector
disclosed by Guest to the toothbrush disclosed by Zandberg.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zandberg in
5The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not
make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A suggestion arising from appellant's disclosure is
impermissible as the basis for a rejection. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007