Appeal No. 1997-1497
Application No. 08/059,693
floss”, “with a preferred twist of about 1.5 to 2.0 turns per
inch.” See column 2, lines 41-49. As recognized by the
examiner, Ashton does not specifically mention using the
claimed PTFE filaments in its bundle. See Answer, page 3. To
remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on either Blass or
Lorch.
As correctly pointed out by appellants (Brief, Page 4 and
Reply Brief, Pages 1 and 2), Blass is directed to using PTFE
powder, not PTFE filaments, on nylon or polyester filaments to
form its floss. Blass discloses PTFE filaments only in the
context of forming a packing material, not a dental floss.
See Blass, column 1, lines 21-29 together with Reply Brief,
Pages 1 and 2. Therefore, we conclude that the combined
disclosures of Ashton and Blass would not have suggested
employing a PTFE filament as part of a flavored dental floss,
much less using it with nylon or polyester filaments, to form
the dental floss of the type described in Ashton.
As also correctly stated by appellants (Brief, Page 5 and
6, and Reply Brief, Page 1), we find that Lorch is directed to
forming a flossing tape which has a dentifrice sandwiched
between two layers of PTFE. See also Lorch's Abstract. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007