Appeal 2007-2566
Application 10/243,873
[18] According to Bowen, the overall refractive index of glass materials to
be used as dental filler material is "preferably between about 1.5 and
1.6" (Bowen col. 9, ll. 51-54).
[19] Embodiments of Bowen's glasses listed in Table 1 are said have
refractive indices ranging from 1.459 to 1.614 (Bowen Table 1).
Other findings of fact follow below.
III. Obviousness
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). KSR Int'l.
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Facts relevant to a
determination of obviousness include: (1) the scope and content of the prior
art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, (3)
the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) relevant objective evidence of
obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at
1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
A. The Examiner's position
The Examiner found that Bachmann differed from claim 1 in failing
to disclose that the refractive index of the resin matrix was within 0.15 of the
refractive index of the fibers (Answer 3). The Examiner "believed that
Bowen teaches differences between the refractive indices of the fibers and
the resin to be less than 0.15 (column 1 line 58, table 1)" (Answer 3). The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to modify the showing of composite material of
Bachmann et al. to have the refractive indices of
Bowen in order to provide a dental composite
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013