Appeal 2006-2288
Application 10/846,942
“[f]ibers or filaments twisted together so as to form a cable, rope, thread, or
yarn” or “[a] single filament, as a fiber or thread < a strand of hair>”.1 The
Examiner does not explain why Dick’s comb teeth and stripper portions
between the slit openings fall within those definitions, or why the
Appellants’ claim terms “bristle” and “strand” should be given a broader
meaning than the dictionary definition in view of the Appellants’
Specification. The Appellants’ exemplification of bristles as densely packed
wires (Spec. ¶ 0025) is consistent with the dictionary definition. The
Appellants’ disclosures that the strands can be metal wires or plastic
filaments (original claims 6 and 7) and can be stretched across the frame
(Spec. ¶ 0028) also are consistent with the dictionary definition. The
Examiner argues that “the combination of elements 12-15 serve as a
brushing unit which has the same function as applicant’s brushing unit (30)”
(Ans. 6). Even if the Appellants’ brush and Dick’s combing device both
remove pet hair, that does not mean that Dick’s combing teeth are bristles.
The Examiner argues that “applicant’s brushing unit (30) can be interpreted
as a set of a plurality of parallel combs seated into a common carrier”, see
id., but the Examiner does not provide evidence that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have viewed the Appellants’ brush in that manner.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the inventions claimed in the Appellants’ claim 1 or its
dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 8-14.
1 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 202, 1145 (Riverside
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013