Appeal No. 1999-0706 Page 7
Application No. 1999-0706
Therefore, in light of appellants' arguments, we find the teachings of Potti and Robinson
sufficient, even without the additional teachings of Yen-Hui, to have suggested the subject
matter of claim 1. Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 14-20 which stand or fall with representative claim 1.
Claim 21 recites, inter alia, the edge portion "extending generally cross-wise relative to
said shank portion and being contoured over its length to have a relatively deep central
portion." We find nothing in Yen-Hui which would have suggested provision of such a
contour on the Potti edge portion of the Potti tongue scraper. Specifically, while Yen-Hui does
illustrate a bulge or thickening (unnumbered) in the tongue scaler (5), such thickening appears
to be in the lateral direction and not in the depth and, as such, would not have suggested the
modification to the Potti edge portion proposed by the examiner. Moreover, we have carefully2
reviewed the teachings of Robinson but find nothing therein which would overcome the above-
noted deficiencies of the combination of Potti and Yen-Hui.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 21, or claims 4, 6, 11
and 13 which stand or fall therewith and also require the "relatively deep central portion" on
the edge portion.
2To the extent that the examiner may be relying on the central slide rib (42) of the head cover (4) for a
teaching of a relatively deep central portion, such reliance is misplaced. Although this rib does form a relatively
deep central portion, it is disposed on the bottom of the head cover (4), which covers the removable bristle holder
(3), and not on the tongue scaler (5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007