Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
to the present specification, the claimed tooth brush maximizes
the amount of light transmitted towards the user and encourages
the user to brush their teeth (see page 1 of specification).
Appealed claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salmon in view of Robinson
and Derose.1
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for claims
22 and 23. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 21.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Salmon, like appellant, discloses a
toothbrush having a portion of its body made of a clear material
1The examiner states at page 2 of the answer that “the 103
rejection of Salmon in view of Robinson and further in view of
Ishiharada is being dropped.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007