Appeal No. 2002-2206 Page 5
Application No. 09/054,211
are spaced to accommodate a few hairs, as called for in claim 13. Moreover, the term
“few” is defined as “not many, a small number”2 and appellant has not expressly defined
this term as being limited to a particular number.3 One of ordinary skill in the art would
certainly infer from Franklin’s disclosure that “[d]ue to the close spacing of the teeth of
an ordinary comb, hairs and other matter become lodged therebetween” (column 1,
lines 6-8), that the teeth of such combs have separations therebetween sized to
accommodate a small number of hairs, with the slots of the cleaning device for the
comb being similarly spaced (column 3, lines 21-24).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Franklin’s cleaning member 15b fully
responds to the limitations of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
13 as being anticipated by Franklin.
The obviousness rejections
Turning first to the rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Guinard in
view of Morrison, the examiner recognizes that Guinard does not disclose “a plate
having two parallel rows of spaced apertures, each aperture sized to receive one of
said teeth [of the comb] wherein said plate is seated upon both of said first layer of
teeth and said second layer of teeth” as called for in claim 14. To overcome this
2 Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988).
3 In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007