Appeal 2007-2566
Application 10/243,873
restoration is important, include transparency and a
refractive index in the vicinity of that of the
composite resin polymer. This index of refraction
is commonly about nD 1.55, although higher and
lower values are sometimes encountered.
[Emphasis added.]
A careful reading of Bowen indicates that the index of refraction
being referred to at column 1, lines 58-59, is that of the composite resin
polymer (FF 17). This disclosure combined with Bowen's disclosure that its
glass material is "preferably between about 1.5 and 1.6" (FF 18; Bowen col.
9, ll. 51-54) teaches a difference in relative refractive indices of ~ +/- 0.05.
Moreover, the Examiner expressly pointed out that the refractive indices
disclosed at column 1, line 58, and in Table 1 of Bowen differed by less than
0.15, as required by claim 1 (Answer 3). Appellants have not pointed to any
evidence of record establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the disclosure of Bowen at column 1, lines 54-60, as not
referring to the refractive index of dental composite resins, contrary to the
Examiner's position. Therefore, Appellants' first argument is not persuasive
of reversible Examiner error.
Appellants' remaining argument that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of Bachmann and Bowen because Bachmann is not
concerned with aesthetics is also unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
The Examiner responds that Bachmann is concerned with aesthetics since
dental crowns are visible structures supported by dental pins and Bachmann
is silent as to whether the dental pin would or would not be visible when
covered by a dental restorative (Answer 5-6). In other words, the
Examiner's position, as we understand it, is that a dental pin (post) showing
through a restorative cover, such as dental crown, would not be aesthetically
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013