Appeal No. 2002-2156 5
Application 29/113,438
contrast on the handle. The examiner is of the view that it would have been obvious to
provide the Vonarburg bristles with the claimed configuration in view of Largever, and to
provide a contrast in color on the handle in view of Hyman.
With regard to the former, the contour described by the distal ends of the
claimed toothbrush is curvilinear and, as is illustrated in Figure 2, is marked by a central
concave portion flanked by convex outer portions, with the convex portion at the toe
having a smaller radius of curvature and being of lesser length than the convex portion
located adjacent to the handle. The distal ends of the Largever bristles also present a
configuration having a central concave portion flanked by convex portions, however, in
Largever the convex portion at the toe has a larger radius, and a longer length, than the
portion which is adjacent to the handle. Thus, in our view, the result of a designer of
ordinary skill in toothbrushes modifying the Vonarburg bristle configuration by the
teaching of Largever would not be the configuration transcribed by the claimed design,
but the opposite of the claimed design.
We agree with the appellants that an important facet of the design of a
toothbrush is its head and bristle configuration, which in our opinion is apparent from
Figure 2 of the drawings. This being the case, from our perspective the differing bristle
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007