Appeal No. 2004-1246
Application No. 09/960,948
For these reasons, we conclude that Funcke, Kemmerer and Beals
are analogous art with respect to appellant’s claimed invention.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12
as being unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals, we are in
agreement with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a soft compressible
non-rigid overshell onto the rigid handle 9 of the toothbrush of
Funcke for the purpose of enhancing the grip of the handle in view
of the teachings of Beals at, for example, column 3, lines 16-17
(“The finger-gripping . . . regions . . . are cushioned, for a more
comfortable and secure grip”); column 3, lines 45-52 (“The finger
gripping region 12 is cushioned for more comfortable, secure
gripping . . . . Again, the resilient elements generally provide a
non-slippery gripping area, and give the handle a softer feel
during brushing”); and column 7, lines 46-50 (“Preferred resilient
materials . . . provide a secure feeling grip, while also being
sufficiently soft to provide a comfortable degree of cushioning
during use”).
Appellant further argues (main brief, page 12; reply brief,
pages 3-4) with respect to the standing rejection of claims 1 and
12 as being unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals that even if
Funcke is modified in the manner proposed by the examiner, the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007