Appeal No. 1999-2414
Application No. 08/942,732
teachings regarding the improvement of such instruments. We note that appellants do not argue the
limitation of the alloy being structurally “10%” amorphous.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 3-6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Appellants’ sole argument
is the inapplicability of Scruggs to dental instruments. That is, we view appellants’ argument as one of
“nonanalogous art.” We disagree with this argument. It is well known that endodontic instruments,
such as the ones disclosed by Weissman and Heath, are made of metal. Artisans seeking to improve
the durability of those instruments would clearly look to the metal coating arts such as Scruggs’
disclosure. Appellants do not deny that Scruggs discloses advantages to be achieved by the use of
amorphous materials and their “excellent erosion and corrosion resistance and high hardness”
properties, as alleged by the examiner. Accordingly, appellants have not convinced us of error in the
examiner’s rationale.
Appellants do not argue independent claim 28 and so we will sustain the rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. 103. Similarly, appellants do not argue the limitations of dependent claims 21, 23 and 24.
Accordingly, these claims will fall with claims 18 and 19 from which they depend.
CONCLUSION
9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007