Appeal No. 2006-0626 3
Application No. 09/316,990
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 9 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Giuliani in view of Michaels and Roberts.
Attention is directed to the brief (filed December 23, 2005)2 and the final
rejection and answer (mailed October 20, 2004 and June 27, 2005) for the respective
positions of the appellants and examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Giuliani, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a vibrating toothbrush 10
comprising an outer case 12, an elongated lever arm 14 pivotally mounted to the case,
bristles 18 on the outer end of the lever arm, a permanent magnet assembly 20 on the
inner end of the lever arm and a magnetic driver. The magnetic driver consists of an
electromagnet 24 in operative association with the permanent magnet assembly and a
battery/oscillator section 26 for energizing and controlling the electromagnet. The driver
is capable of vibrating the lever arm and bristles in an operating frequency range of 150
to 400 Hz. Giuliani selects the operating frequency to be either (1) approximately equal
to the natural mechanical resonant frequency of the lever arm and its pivotal mounting
means or (2) slightly different therefrom by a small amount such that the amplitude of
vibration increases when the lever arm and bristles are in a loaded condition as opposed
to an unloaded condition (see column 2, line 54, through column 3, line 6; and column 9,
lines 10-49).
The appellants cite Giuliani in their specification (see page 4) as disclosing a
mechanism that produces the vibrating movement required by their invention and do not
2 This brief is a supplemental brief that corrects minor informalities in a preceding brief (filed March 21,
2005). The substantive arguments respectively advanced in these briefs are the same.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007