Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
carrying a respective brush body...” The remainder of
appellant’s argument is that while the instant claimed invention
is directed to carbon leaf brushes, Mabuchi is directed to
fingerleaf brushes and that the skilled artisan would not assume
that an advance in fingerleaf brushes would be applicable to
carbon leaf brushes as well.
The examiner has particularly pointed out that, in Mabuchi,
brush shoe 1 is considered to be a “brush body,” as claimed, and
brush arm 2 is considered to be a “support arm, as claimed. We
find this to be a reasonable assessment.
Appellant contends that Mabuchi does not have a “brush
body,” but, in view of the examiner’s identification of a brush
body at element 1 of Mabuchi, appellant must show why this is not
a “brush body,” as claimed. Appellant attempts to do this by
arguing, at length, the differences between carbon leaf brushes,
alleged as being the type claimed, and fingerleaf brushes,
alleged as being the type disclosed by Mabuchi.
We note, as did the examiner [answer-page 6], that the
instant claims are not limited to “carbon leaf” brushes. The
claims do not preclude fingerleaf brushes even if appellant’s
alleged distinction between these two types of brushes is
accurate. Accordingly, appellant’s arguments directed to carbon
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007