Appeal No. 1999-2628 Page 2
Application No. 08/652,723
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a haircutting guide-comb instrument for use in
cutting hair of a human being. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 16, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Wall 3,928,871 Dec. 30, 1975
Maggiore 4,520,565 Jun. 4, 1985
The following rejection is before us for review.1
Claims 15-17, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Maggiore in view of Wall.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and the answer2
(Paper No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this rejection.
1The examiner (advisory action, Paper No. 6) indicated that the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 15-24
was overcome by the amendment filed December 8, 1997.
2Any references in this decision to the brief refer to the corrected appeal brief filed April 17, 1998 (Paper
No. 12).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007