Appeal 2006-2288
Application 10/846,942
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner does not set forth any reason why the combination of
1) a brushing element including a bristle head and a multiplicity of bristles
extending therefrom, and 2) a cleaning element including a frame and
strands extending across the frame, recited in claim 1 from which claims 5,
7, 15 and 16 directly or indirectly depend, would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection is based
upon Dick’s comb teeth being bristles and the portions of Dick’s stripper
between the slit openings being strands (Ans. 3). As pointed out above
regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner is incorrect
in that respect.2
The Dick reference relied upon by the Examiner and the Appellants’
acknowledged prior art (Spec. ¶ 0004; Br. 5) pertain to hair removal using a
plate having holes or slits therein. The Examiner has not explained why the
prior art would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
replacing such a plate with a strand frame having strands extending across
the frame.
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the inventions claimed in the Appellants’ claims 5, 7, 15
and 16.3
1984).
2 The Examiner does not rely upon Hartmann or Tsuruzawa for any
disclosure that remedies that deficiency in Dick.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013