Appeal No. 95-2721 Page 5
Application No. 08/054,927
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Independent claim 1 is drawn to an orthodontic appliance
formed of a titanium alloy. The titanium alloy comprises a $-
stabilizing element including at least 12 wt% molybdenum to
produce a $-monophase that is stable at body temperature.
Hilgers discloses an orthodontic archwire made of a
titanium molybdenum alloy. Hilgers teaches that they
have found that an orthodontic wire made out of a
titanium molybdenum alloy is capable of providing the
desired physical properties. U.S. Pat. No. 4,197,643
disclose some alloys of the general type suitable for the
present invention. In order to maintain the appropriate
ductility required for an archwire made in accordance
with the present invention, the wire should be made of a
material having a body centered cubic structure having a
maximum of 30% alpha phase form.
Hilgers then discloses that they have found the following
alloy composition to be suitable:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007