Appeal 2007-0122
Application 10/358,626
The Examiner finds that Cousty describes a hairbrush with a head and
a handle, the handling having a stem and deformable grip as claimed
(Answer 3). The Examiner acknowledges that the grip of Cousty does not
have the further claimed deformable viscous material positioned between the
stem and an outer resilient sleeve (Answer 3). The Examiner finds that
McCall describes such a grip structure for use on manual implements with
working tips (Answer 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the
deformable grip of McCall into the hairbrush handle of Cousty to enhance
gripping comfort and reduce hand fatigue during hairstyling (Answer 4).
Appellant relies upon the following evidence to show non-
obviousness based on a long-felt need:
Women’s Wear Daily-Editorial, Newell’s Industrie Targets Stylists (Exhibit
A).
http://industrie.net/ (Exhibit B).
Modern Salon-Editorial, Industrie Launches at ISSE (Exhibit C).
Beauty Launchpad-Editorial, Tool Time-Brushes with Greatness (Exhibit C)
According to Appellant, these publications contain assertions by
industry professionals to the effect that the invention addressed a long-felt
need (Br. 4).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issues
Appellant contends that there is no suggestion to modify the hairbrush
of Cousty with the deformable grip of McCall as advanced by the Examiner
(Br. 2-4). This is because, according to Appellant, the structure and use of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013