Appeal No. 1999-2628 Page 9
Application No. 08/652,723
and, thus, is not a "channel." We do not agree. As pointed out by the examiner (answer, page
6), the claims do not preclude the presence of an additional element received in the channel
between it and the comb-teeth filling the volume defined by the channel.
The appellant's argument that the claims call for a structure for "one length" cutting
(brief, pages 9 and 10) or "straight haircuts" (reply brief, pages 6 and 7) is simply not
commensurate in scope with the claims. While we have carefully reviewed the claim
terminology particularly alluded to by the appellant on pages 9 and 10 of the brief as requiring
this feature, we see nothing therein which even suggests, much less requires, structure for one-
length cutting. In any event, to the extent that use of the device in the manner recited in the
final paragraph of claim 16 necessarily results in a "straight haircut or "one-length" cutting, the
Maggiore apparatus, as modified in view of Wall, as discussed above, is fully capable of such
use and, thus, inherently meets this limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner's rejection of representative claim 16, as well as claims
15, 17, 23 and 24 which stand or fall with claim 16.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 15-17, 23 and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007