Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
toothbrush handle to the user’s eye during brushing, we find that
an acknowledged object of Salmon to provide an exciting visual
effect during brushing corresponds to appellant’s direction of
light to the user’s eye.
We are also not persuaded by appellant’s argument that
“[t]he Examiner’s statement is inaccurate [because] [t]he metal
flakes of Appellant’s invention are not used for ornamental
purposes” (page 4 of the reply brief, first paragraph).
Appellant’s statement at page 1 of the specification that “[a]
still further objective of the present invention is to provide a
novel device to encourage a user to brush their teeth” belies
appellant’s argument that the claimed toothbrush is not used for
ornamental purposes also.
Appellant’s principal brief does not contest the examiner’s
legal conclusion that it would been obvious to incorporate the
timing circuit of Robinson “into the brush of Salmon to signal to
the users when a recommended brushing time interval has started
and ended, so as to avoid injury to teeth and gums” (page 4 of
answer, second paragraph). Appellant’s reply brief, however,
presents arguments against the obviousness of using Robinson’s
timing device in the toothbrush of Salmon. Rather than remand
the application to the examiner to elicit further comment on this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007