Appeal No. 1999-0706 Page 6
Application No. 1999-0706
Robinson were not considered to be directed to the same field of endeavor as appellants'
invention, Robinson is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which appellants are
involved.
We are also not persuaded by appellants' further arguments (brief, pages 6 and 7)
regarding the perceived structural differences between Robinson's curette and appellants'
tongue cleaner. The assertion that the Robinson curette as shown in Figure 1 has the head (18)
angled upwardly (not downwardly, as claimed) relative to the insertion tube (12) ignores the
teaching by Robinson (column 2, lines 64-68) that the head may be moved to any desired
portion of the walls merely by rotating the tube (12) about its longitudinal axis. In other words,
Robinson clearly teaches orientation of the device such that the head portion is appropriately
angled from the stem (insertion tube) to engage the desired tissue. One of ordinary skill in the
art applying this teaching to a tongue scraper would have understood that an orientation in
which the supporting portion angles downwardly from the shank portion would have been
desirable for engaging the posterior portion of the tongue. As to appellants' argument
regarding the flexibility of the branches (24) of the Robinson head, appellants have not alleged
that the supporting portion of Potti is not "relatively rigid" and we are at a loss to understand
why such flexibility in the preferred embodiment disclosed by Robinson would have dissuaded
one of ordinary skill in the art from disposing the supporting portion of Potti at an angle
relative to the shank portion to facilitate engagement with the posterior portion of the tongue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007