Appeal No. 1999-2628 Page 6
Application No. 08/652,723
blending cut hair ends with the remaining hair, an application recognized as useful by Wall
(column 1, lines 39-48, and column 2, lines 20-27).
The appellant's principal arguments against the rejection are based on the assertion that,
even if the references were combined as proposed by the examiner, the detents taught by Wall
are not "comb-teeth" in that, when used as disclosed, they hold some hair on their tops (the
narrow outer surfaces) and, thus, do not have a top surface that will move through hair
completely and without interruption (brief, pages 7-8; reply brief, pages 2-5). Consequently,
according to the appellant, the hair cutting guide apparatus is not capable of penetrating through
the hair positioned between the jaw members such that the hair is combed as the apparatus is
then moved through the hair, as required in the last paragraph of independent claims 15 and
16.
In support of the position that the detents of Wall cannot be considered "comb-teeth,"
the appellant cites several patents which illustrate combs having teeth which are tapered
throughout their free ends (see reply brief, page 2 and Exhibit 1). While many, if not all, of
these patents do appear to illustrate comb-teeth having free ends which are tapered in the
direction transverse to the stroke direction, the appellant has not pointed to any express
definition of "comb-teeth" in any of these patents which requires such tapering. In fact, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007