Appeal No. 1999-2414
Application No. 08/942,732
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-21 and 23-28. The examiner
indicated in the answer that previously rejected claims 10 and 22 are now deemed to be directed to
allowable subject matter and these claims are no longer before us on appeal [answer-page 6].
The invention is directed to an endodontic instrument. In particular, the instrument is said to have
improved physical properties by having varying stiffness/flexibility properties along a length of the
working shaft portion of the instrument. The stiffness/flexibility is said to be not due solely to any
variation in dimensions or cross-sectional shape of the working shaft.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An endodontic instrument including a working shaft portion wherein said working
shaft portion has varying stiffness/flexibility properties along at least a portion of its length, said
variation in stiffness/flexibility not being due solely to any variation in dimensions or cross-
sectional shape of said working shaft.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Weissman 4,990,088 Feb. 05, 1991
Scruggs et al. [Scruggs] 5,389,226 Feb. 14, 1995
Heath et al. [Heath] 5,464,362 Nov. 07, 1995
(filed July, 7, 1994)
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Weissman.
2–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007