Appeal No. 2004-1246
Application No. 09/960,948
claimed subject matter would not ensue because (1) there is no
disclosure in Funcke of an applicator brush, and (2) the brush of
Funcke is not aligned in substantially the same direction as the
longitudinal axis of the base member as claimed. Concerning (1),
as we explained in our treatment of appellant’s nonanalogous
argument supra, we consider that the toothbrush of Funcke
constitutes an “applicator brush” as broadly set forth in
appellant’s claims in that Funcke’s toothbrush is for applying a
“dentifrice” (i.e., a paste or powder for cleaning the teeth). As
to (2), during patent examination claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations are not to be
read into them from the specification, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, as aptly
noted by the examiner on pages 7-8 of the answer, the “[applicator]
brush is aligned in substantially the same direction as the
longitudinal axis of said base member.” This language of
independent claims 1 and 12 is broad enough to be readable on the
brush construction of Funcke, where the bristles of the brush are
arranged along the longitudinally axis of the brush’s base member.
Appellant’s argument on page 12 of the main brief and pages 3-4 of
the reply brief to the effect that the brush alignment limitation
of the independent claims should be interpreted as requiring that
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007