Comments on: Toothbrush walks into a bar

By: anon

anon — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 14:51:16 +0000

“Once the head is molded into the body, it is now part of the “toothbrush”. If that head in the toothbrush cannot flex, then the “toothbrush” is not flexible throughout.”

Maybe take some time to read the claims. (I do note that you insert quotations around the word ‘toothbrush,’ perhaps realizing that what you post does NOT reflect the actual claim…)

By: anon

anon — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:36:18 +0000

Wow, you are 180 degrees off yet again, my pal Shifty.

You continue to choose to post in your train wreck matter – on posts that have long lost the interest of most everyone.

Your memes/tells have not changed.

By: A. Lincoln

A. Lincoln — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 04:24:51 +0000

Wow. You got your ass handed to you again, Snowflake.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:31:42 +0000

You confuse a state of the after combined item with the claim of state of only one item of the pair.

You are simply — and factually — in error.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:24:12 +0000

Makes one wonder. Is the patent in question for a “toothbrush” or is the patent for the invention of a “head of a toothbrush?”
Once the head is molded into the body, it is now part of the “toothbrush”. If that head in the toothbrush cannot flex, then the “toothbrush” is not flexible throughout.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:19:33 +0000

The patentee may have euchred themselves in this ruling. As I commented above, with this ruling and looking at the Claim language I cannot see how this toothbrush ( save and except some finger pocket on the back ) can now be considered any different than any other bi or tri component toothbrush out on the market?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:13:29 +0000

The big picture when looking at this case is that with the reversal of the Circuit Court, and in looking at the other Claims of the 8,448,285 Patent, how is this toothbrush now difference than any other rubber and plastic toothbrush on the market? From what I can see it is not. Loops says that they have a toothbrush that is “flexible throughout”. Well every other toothbrush should now be considered “flexible throughout”. The only distinguishable feature that the patent has is the finger pocket on the back which the accused product does not have. Maxill still has an exceptionally strong case for non-infringement for if Maxill infringes on the 8,448,285 Patent, then pretty much every toothbrush out there also infringes.

By: Vortexx

Vortexx — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 03:38:33 +0000

“[Which is obviously desirable, and thus also a POSITA common-sense claim interpretation.]”

Which canon of interpretation is this?

By: Vortexx

Vortexx — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 03:36:58 +0000

Yeah but they dont claim the material is flexible throughout. They claim the part itself is flexible throughout.

If I glue a piece of flexible rubber to a stiff board, the piece of rubber is no longer flexible. Even though separate from the board it is flexible, and the board is clearly a second, different elemen.t

By: Vortexx

Vortexx — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 03:35:12 +0000

Anon,
Yes, they are two different parts. No doubt about it. But when you mold a first flexible part to a second non-flexible part, then the first part can no longer flex.

Think about gluing a piece of rubber (flexible) to a wooden board. Once its glued, the rubber can no longer flex, because it is glued to an underlying inflexible piece of wood. Even though they are two different parts.

So the question is can you satisfy a claim element that one part is “flexible throughout,” even if that part cant flex in its entirely because part of it is molded to a second, different, inflexible part.