Appeal No. 1999-0739
Application 08/747,663
(a point of some debate and speculation since we have no idea
exactly what the flexi- bility of the bristles in Curtis may
be), it does not follow that the “rigid fingers” of
appellant’s claims on appeal lack utility or are somehow of
less significance in a determination of obviousness under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to the examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been merely an obvious matter of design choice for
one of ordinary skill in the art to employ rigid fingers on
the Curtis
device in place of the bristles (43), we must agree with
appellant (brief, pages 6-7) that such a modification is
directly contrary to the clear teachings in Curtis (col. 6,
lines 55-59) regarding the need to maintain flexibility of the
bristles therein, and would in fact destroy the toothbrush
head embodiment
(Fig. 5) of the Curtis device for its intended purpose. As
was
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007