Appeal No. 2004-1246
Application No. 09/960,948
the longitudinal axis of every bristle of the brush extends in the
same direction as the longitudinal axis of the handle is not well
taken since it is, in effect, an improper and unjustified attempt
to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 12 as being unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals.
We also shall sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14,
16 and 19 as being unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals since
appellant states on page 8 of the main brief with respect to this
rejection that claims 1-3, 5, and 10 stand or fall together and
that claims 12-14, 16 and 19 stand or fall together. In addition,
we shall sustain the standing rejection of claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals because appellant has not
separately argued for the patentability of this dependent claim
with any reasonable degree of specificity apart from claim 1 from
which it depends.
Concerning claims 6 and 17, these claims depend from claims 1
and 12, respectively, and add that the base member is constructed
from a material selected from the group consisting of
polypropylene, ABS copolymers and nylon. We are accord with the
examiner that it also would have been obvious to make the base
portion of the handle of the modified Funcke handle of
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007