Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
having a light refractive additive therein for dispersing a beam
of light emitted by a projector within the toothbrush. Although
Salmon is silent with respect to the particular light refractive
additive that is included in the body of the toothbrush, we agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one or
ordinary skill in the art to employ the metal flakes of Derose as
the light refractive additive in the toothbrush of Salmon. While
Derose is directed to a decorative display rather than a
toothbrush, we agree with the examiner that Derose evidences that
it was known in the art that it is desirable to scatter the light
from a glaring point of light in a pleasing manner by the use of
metal flakes. Accordingly, we do not subscribe to appellant’s
argument that Derose is non-analogous since it is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem concerning the present invention and
Salmon. Since one of the stated purposes of Salmon is to create
an exciting visual effect with the glowing toothbrush to
encourage children to brush their teeth, we find that Derose’s
teaching of using metal flakes to provide a pleasing light would
be pertinent to the objective of Salmon. Also, while appellant
contends that the purpose of Salmon’s toothbrush is to create a
glowing illumination of the mouth during brushing and cleaning,
while the problem solved by appellant is directing light from the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007