Ex Parte Nanda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 7, 2006

10351104 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PUNEET NANDA
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 21-23.
Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A toothbrush comprising:
a handle having a base, a body, and a head, the body being
made of a clear material;
a source of electrical power;
the body having a first section and a second section forming
an oblique angle, the first section having a chamber
therein;
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
2
a projector of a beam of light connected to the source of
electrical power and being located within the chamber;
a plurality of bristles attached to the head;
a grip attached to the base;
a switch between the source of electrical power and the
projector for activating the projector to emit the beam
of light, the switch being a flexible member attached
to the base;

a timing circuit connected to the projector and being
capable of limiting the operation of the projector of a
beam of light to a predetermined period of time;

a plurality of metal flakes embedded within the clear
material of the body, the metal flakes being capable of
reflecting the beam of light in a plurality of
directions, whereby the beam of light from the
projector will pass thorugh the clear material and will
be reflected in a plurality of directions by the metal
flakes externally o the clear material.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Salmon et al. (Salmon) 6,202,242 Mar. 20, 2001
Derose US 2003/0079387 A1 May 1, 2003
Robinson et al. (Robinson) 6,606,755 Aug. 19, 2003
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a toothbrush
comprising a body made of a clear material having a plurality of
metal flakes embedded therein which reflect a beam of light from
a projector located within the body of the toothbrush. The
toothbrush also comprises a timing circuit connected to the
projector for limiting the operation of the projector. According
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
The examiner states at page 2 of the answer that “the 1031
rejection of Salmon in view of Robinson and further in view of
Ishiharada is being dropped.”
3
to the present specification, the claimed tooth brush maximizes
the amount of light transmitted towards the user and encourages
the user to brush their teeth (see page 1 of specification).
Appealed claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salmon in view of Robinson
and Derose.1
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for claims
22 and 23. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 21.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Salmon, like appellant, discloses a
toothbrush having a portion of its body made of a clear material
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
4
having a light refractive additive therein for dispersing a beam
of light emitted by a projector within the toothbrush. Although
Salmon is silent with respect to the particular light refractive
additive that is included in the body of the toothbrush, we agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one or
ordinary skill in the art to employ the metal flakes of Derose as
the light refractive additive in the toothbrush of Salmon. While
Derose is directed to a decorative display rather than a
toothbrush, we agree with the examiner that Derose evidences that
it was known in the art that it is desirable to scatter the light
from a glaring point of light in a pleasing manner by the use of
metal flakes. Accordingly, we do not subscribe to appellant’s
argument that Derose is non-analogous since it is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem concerning the present invention and
Salmon. Since one of the stated purposes of Salmon is to create
an exciting visual effect with the glowing toothbrush to
encourage children to brush their teeth, we find that Derose’s
teaching of using metal flakes to provide a pleasing light would
be pertinent to the objective of Salmon. Also, while appellant
contends that the purpose of Salmon’s toothbrush is to create a
glowing illumination of the mouth during brushing and cleaning,
while the problem solved by appellant is directing light from the
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
5
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
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
6
point, we are confident that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to include such a timing element in
the toothbrush of Salmon. Appellant’s specification, at page 1,
states that “there is a need for indicating an increment of time
in which a user is brushing their teeth.” To the extent that
such a need was known in the art, we find that Robinson evidences
the obviousness of employing the claimed timing element to
satisfy the need. In our view, both the problem and its solution
would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243-44, 147 USPQ 420, 421 (CCPA
1965).
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
7
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNK K. PAK ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:hh
Appeal No. 2006-2029
Application No. 10/351,104
8
MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C.
801 GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 3200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2721