Appeal 2006-2288
Application 10/846,942
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to claim the subject matter
which the Appellants regard as the invention.
Accordingly, we procedurally reverse the rejection of claims 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dick. This is not a reversal on the merits but,
rather, is a procedural reversal based upon the undue speculation as to the
scope of the claims that would be required to address the merits of a
rejection over prior art.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Dick discloses a dog hair combing device comprising a block
base (10) having longitudinally thereon four parallel spaced apart comb
members (12-15) of progressively decreasing coarseness (col. 1, ll. 15-
16, 55-64). A shield stripper (17) having four slit openings (18) through
which the comb teeth protrude is hindgedly attached to the block base
(col. 2, ll. 12-15). The end of the stripper opposite the hinge is lifted from
the block base by a handle flange (19) to strip hair from the comb members,
and then is lowered onto the block base for reuse of the combing device
(col. 2, ll. 18-23).
The Appellants argue that Dick’s comb teeth are not bristles and that
the portions of Dick’s stripper between the slit openings are illustrated as
being wider than the slit openings and are not strands (Br. 4, 6).
The Examiner relies upon Dick’s comb teeth as being bristles and
Dick’s stripper portions between the slit openings as being strands (Ans. 3,
7). A bristle is “[a] short, coarse, stiff hair or hair-like part”, and a strand is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013