Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 5
brush tufts or bristles (7 and 8) as called for in dependent
claim 5.
For the reasons stated above and in the answer, we determine
that the examiner has presented a prima facie case of
anticipation that has not been rebutted by the arguments of
record. It follows that we will sustain the examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 3-5.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14
Regarding the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 12-14
as being obvious over the teachings of Vallis, we agree with the
examiner that the use of well-known materials such as wood, as
recited in claims 12-14, for constructing the attachment base
would have been a selection of construction material that is well
within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art and hence
prima facie obvious. This is so since one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ readily available and cost
effective construction materials, such as wood, with a reasonable
expectation of success in so doing.
Moreover, regarding claims 8-10 and the separate § 103(a)
rejection thereof, we agree with the examiner that choosing the
size of the brushes in a manner so as to arrive at workable brush
sizes, such as called for in claims 8-10, would have been prima
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007