Appeal No. 2006-0626 4
Application No. 09/316,990
dispute the examiner’s determination (see page 2 in the final rejection) that Giuliani’s
driver meets the driver assembly limitations in claim 1. The examiner concedes,
however, that the Giuliani device does not respond to the particular stimulator assembly
limitations in the claim. To cure this shortcoming, the examiner turns to Michaels and
Roberts.
Michaels discloses “a durable toothbrush head which is effective for cleaning and
polishing teeth, and massaging and stimulating the gums, without injury to the hard or
soft tissues” (column 1, lines 7-10). To this end, Michaels replaces the conventional but
problematic nylon bristles typically used in a toothbrush with elastomeric projections
(see, for example, column 1, lines 11-49; and column 2, lines 62-68). According to
Michaels, the elastomeric projections are superior to nylon bristles in terms of
cleaning/polishing effectiveness, abrasion prevention, fatigue resistance and hygienic
maintenance (see column 3, lines 57-65).
Roberts pertains to “gum-massaging oral brushes which provide good comfort
and gum stimulation while also providing good cleaning of the teeth” (column 1, lines
33-35). To negate the deleterious effects of sharp and excessively stiff conventional
bristles (see column 1, lines 16-20), Roberts makes some or all of the bristles on the
inventive brushes of an elastomeric material (see column 1, lines 38-57; and column 6,
lines 5-7). Roberts also teaches that the bristles can have a convex curved topography
(see column 3, lines 4-8), that the elastomeric bristles may be formed of tufts of one or
more filaments (see column 3, lines 24-25), that if a relatively soft thermoplastic
elastomer is used, the filaments preferably have a diameter less than about 200 mil, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007