Appeal No. 1997-1497
Application No. 08/059,693
purpose of forming a flossing tape, rather than a thread, is
to provide, inter alia, a polishing function. See Lorch,
column 1. Thus, we find no suggestion that the PTFE flossing
tape of the type described in Lorch would be useful as part of
the threaded filament type dental floss described in Ashton.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with appellants that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 15 under 35 U.S. C. § 103 over the applied
prior art.
OTHER ISSUES
We note that Blass states that GB 1380032 discloses “a
yarn which contains aromatic polyamide filaments and
polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE] filaments.” Upon return of
this application, the examiner is to review GB 1380032 to
determine whether its yarn affects the patentability of the
invention recited in the appealed claims.
We also note that U.S. Patents 5,033,488 and 5,209,251
issued to Curtis et al. filed on December 2, 1988 and July 11,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007