Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
rejections, the examiner specifically concedes that Randklev
shows use of a one part adhesive and does not show the use of
first and second parts of a two-part adhesive (answer, page 6).
The examiner looks to Sondhi to supply this deficiency, urging
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Randklev “to include the use of a two-part adhesive
as shown by Sondhi in order to make use of known alternatives for
adhesively bonding brackets to teeth” (final rejection, pages 6-
7). We find nothing in the combined teachings of Randklev and
Sondhi which would have led to the particular modification in
Randklev urged by the examiner. As we noted earlier, Randklev
expressly discloses use of a light-curable adhesive and sets
forth reasons for using that particular type of adhesive on the
orthodontic appliances disclosed therein. Thus, modifying
Randklev in the manner urged by the examiner would be contrary
to the teachings of that patent.
Moreover, even if the substitution of the two-part adhesive
of Sondhi as posited by the examiner were to be made in Randklev,
the resulting structure and method would not be that claimed by
appellants, since the adhesive of Sondhi is different from
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007