Ex parte SHOHER et al. - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1998-0239                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/279,907                                                                                                             


                 the preselected temperature at which said dental composition                                                                           
                 is to be heat treated, with said particles having an irregular                                                                         
                 non-spherical geometry of which at least 50% have a cross-                                                                             
                 sectional average thickness of less than 1.5 microns, at least                                                                         
                 about 20% and up to 85% by volume of a volatile binder and                                                                             
                 carbonaceous particles in a concentration above at least 0.005                                                                         
                 wt.% of the dental composition.                                                                                                        
                          4.  A moldable dental composition as defined in claim 3,                                                                      
                 wherein the determination of at least 50% of said particles                                                                            
                 having an average thickness of less than 1.5 microns is                                                                                
                 established by measuring the surface area of the largest two                                                                           
                 dimensional surface of each high fusing temperature metal                                                                              
                 particle, computing the total two dimensional surface area for                                                                         
                 all of the high fusing temperature metal particles in said                                                                             
                 composition and dividing the cumulative surface area of the                                                                            
                 high fusing temperature metal particles below 1.5 microns in                                                                           
                 average thickness by the total two dimensional surface area                                                                            
                 for all of the particles.                                                                                                              
                          The examiner has not cited prior art in rejecting the                                                                         
                 appealed claims.                                                                                                                       
                          Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a moldable                                                                       
                 dental composition comprising high-fusing temperature metal                                                                            
                 particles having an irregular non-spherical geometry of which                                                                          
                 at least 50% have a cross-sectional average thickness of less                                                                          
                 than 1.5 microns.                                                                                                                      
                          Appealed claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                           
                 § 112, second paragraph.1                                                                                                              

                          1The examiner's rejection under the judicially created                                                                        
                 doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting has been                                                                                 
                                                                                                            (continued...)                              
                                                                         -2-                                                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007