Appeal No. 2002-2206 Page 9
Application No. 09/054,211
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). The rejection of claim 20 is thus also sustained.
We shall not, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of method claims 24 and
25, as the examiner has not addressed appellant’s argument on page 5 of the brief that
the applied prior art references provide no suggestion to use a comb having a removing
means as claimed for the purpose of diagnosing infestations.4
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 26 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. We
have also made a recommendation in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.196(c) to overcome
the rejection of claim 26 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
examiner’s decision to reject claims 14, 22, 23 and 26 is affirmed as to claim 14 and
reversed as to claims 22, 23 and 26. The examiner’s decision to reject claims 19, 20,
24 and 25 is affirmed as to claims 19 and 20 and reversed as to claims 24 and 25.
A statement pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(c) has been made in this decision. A
time period in which the appellant may file an amendment for the purpose stated in
§ 1.196(c) is hereby set to expire TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
DECISION.
4 Our remarks, supra, with respect to the examiner’s treatment of claims 22, 23 and 26 likewise
apply to the examiner’s treatment of claims 24 and 25. Upon return of this application to the Technology
Center, however, the examiner may wish to consider whether it would have been obvious to one using a
cleaning member as taught by Franklin with a lice comb as taught by Peyron to first inspect the cleaning
member 15b to see if it needs to be cleaned, as taught by Franklin in column 3, lines 16-18, thereby also
determining whether pests or their eggs were present in the hair combed with Peyron’s lice comb.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007