Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
being unpatentable over Jordan, Jr., but we reverse the 12
rejection of claims 123 through 127, and 132 for procedural
reasons, as explained below.
Independent claim 113 (with claims 114 through 119, and
121 dependent thereon), akin to claim 134 discussed above in
the third rejection, requires “traction ribs”. Consistent
with our assessment of the Jordan, Jr. document above, and
once again taking into account appellants’ definition of ribs
in the present application, it is our determination that the
“traction ribs” of claim 113 are simply not taught by and
would not have been suggested by the overall teaching of the
Jordan, Jr. patent.
More specifically, it is our opinion that the Jordan, Jr.
reference would not have been suggestive of a crest for the
bristles that is at least one line. Thus, notwithstanding the
examiner’s focus upon the obviousness of ascertaining profile
12A reading of the examiner’s rejection indicates to us
that the Jordan, Jr. reference was not fully appreciated as to
its teaching (claims 3 and 8) of bristle distance (height), as
discussed, supra, in footnote No. 11. Likewise, it is apparent
to us from the main brief (page 25) that appellants also did
perceive this teaching in the Jordan, Jr. patent.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007