Appeal No. 1997-1497
Application No. 08/059,693
1991, respectively, describe the advantage of using PTFE
filaments as a dental floss. Upon return of this application,
the examiner is to determine (1) whether Curtis ‘488 and ‘251
are “prior art” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
if they are “prior art”, whether the combined teachings of
Ashton and Curtis ‘488 or ‘251 affect the patentability of the
invention recited in the appealed claims.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed and the application is remanded to the examiner for
appropriate action consistent with the above instruction.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED/REMANDED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007