Appeal No. 1996-2735
Application 08/322,741
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 9, 14 through 16, 20, 25 through 29, 31 and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Tanzer.1
II. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tanzer.
III. Claims 9, 14 through 16, 20, 25 through 27, 29 through 31, 42, 43, 462
through 50 and 53 through 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jones, Fukumoto and Heitfeld.
We have carefully considered the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner and find ourselves in substantial agreement with that of the appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse all the rejections. We refer to the appellant’s Brief (Paper
No. 33) and the examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 34) for a complete exposition of the
opposing viewpoints and we add only brief comment.
1The examiner has indicated on p. 2 of the Answer that claims 22 through 24 are
also encompassed by the rejection. However, since these claims were canceled by
amendment filed June 1, 1995, in Paper No. 28, we presume that their inclusion in the
rejection was an oversight on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, for purposes of this
appeal, we have considered the rejection as applying to the claims as denominated
above.
2We point out that claim 46 appears to contain an inadvertent typographical error.
A comma is missing between the words “fluoride” and “phosphate” on line 2.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007