Appeal No. 2006-1243 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/955,690
In addition, we note that the claims are all directed to a trimmer attachment for a
hair clipper and are not directed to the hair clipper itself. Therefore, in our view, any
trimmer attachment which is capable of reciprocating in response to the reciprocation of
a reciprocating blade would meet the requirements of the claims. The blade 5 of
Tanaka is certainly capable of reciprocating in response to the reciprocation of a
reciprocating blade were it attached thereto.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 3, 7, 9 to 11 and 15
to 17 because the appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007