Appeal No. 2004-1058
Application 09/584,053
the Deneen device on a furry pet. Moreover, even if Clements did
contain such a suggestion, this use of the Deneen device would
not, for the reasons explained above, respond to the limitations
in independent claims 12, 24 and 28 requiring the blade edge to
“engage the loose hair of the pet and pull it from the pet
without cutting or pulling the non-loose hair from the pet” when
pulled along the handle axis. Thus, the combined teachings of
Deneen and Clements do not justify the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in claims
12, 24 and 28.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 12, 24 and 28, and
dependent claims 13 through 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 through 27 and 29,
as being unpatentable over Deneen in view of Clements.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007