Appeal No. 1997-1497
Application No. 08/059,693
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Ashton in view of Blass or Lorch.1
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis
and completeness.
We find that Ashton discloses “a flavored dental floss
formed of a plurality of individual filaments...” See column
2, lines 27-28. These filaments “include...nylon...rayon,
Dacron, acetate polymers [polyester], polypropylene and the
like (emphasis supplied)”. See column 2, lines 30-33. “It is
preferred to twist the individual filaments...to form the
1The examiner has withdrawn the § 112 rejection of claims
4, 5, 11 and 15 set forth in the final Office action dated
Feb. 7, 1994, Paper No. 4. See Answer, pages 1 and 2.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007