Appeal No. 1999-0706 Page 3
Application No. 1999-0706
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 13) and the answer (Paper No. 14) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, appellants' brief (page 4) states that claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 14 stand
or fall together, claims 4, 6, 11, 13 and 21 stand or fall together and claims 15-20 stand or fall
together. We note, however, that appellants have not argued separately the patentability of
claims 15-20 apart from claim 1. Therefore, claims 15-20 shall stand or fall with representative
claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). In accordance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claims 1 and 21 as the representative claims to decide the
appeal of this rejection, with claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 14-20 standing or falling with claim 1
and claims 4, 6, 11 and 13 standing or falling with claim 21.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claim 1, the examiner finds that Potti
discloses a tongue cleaner as claimed with the exception of the angle between the shank portion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007