Appeal No. 2003-1012 Page 2
Application No. 09/340,111
applying said aqueous medium directly to the surfaces of the
teeth having calculus deposits and to said calculus deposits on the
teeth for an effective amount of time to substantially remove or loosen
calculus and deposits from the teeth while suppressing pain and
irritation of the gum tissue, and
thereafter neutralizing said acidic aqueous medium on the
surfaces of the teeth.
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Beierle et al. (Beierle) 4,291,017 Sep. 22, 1981
Ebetino et al. (Ebetino) 5,391,743 Feb. 21, 1995
Colowick et al. (Colowick), Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 1, pp. 138-141 (1955)
Claims 13, 15-19 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ebetino. In addition, claims 13-21, 32 and 34-39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Ebetino and Beierle.1 After careful review of the record and consideration of the
issues before us, we reverse the rejections of record.
DISCUSSION
Claims 13, 15-19 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ebetino.
According to the rejection, Ebetino teaches a mouthwash or a dental
solution that can be used as an anticalculus composition. The composition may
1 We note that claim 21 does not appear in the appendix of the claims being
appealed, nor did the examiner note its absence in the Answer. Both the
examiner and appellants agree, however, that this rejection applies to claim 21,
and as claim 21 is still pending, this appeal reaches claim 21.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007