Appeal No. 1999-0739
Application 08/747,663
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking at page 3 of the brief, we note that
appellant has indicated that independent claims 1 and 12 are
separately patentable, that dependent claims 2 through 11
stand or fall with claim 1, and that dependent claims 13
through 18 stand or fall with claim 12. Thus, we focus our
discussions below on
independent claims 1 and 12, and consider that the dependent
claims before us on appeal will stand or fall with their
respective independent claims.
Independent claims 1 and 12 each define appellant’s
device for cleaning and treating the tongue as including,
inter
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007