Appeal No. 2003-1038
Application No. 09/262,628
17. An orthodontic article comprising a
fluoroplastic selected from the group consisting of
perfluoroethylene-propylene copolymer,
perfluoroalkoxyethylene, ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene
copolymer, polyvinylidenefluoride, polyvinylfluoride,
polychlorotrifluoroethylene, ethylene-
chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer, or a combination
thereof.
The appellants rely on the following prior art reference:
Grootaert 5,285,002 Feb. 8, 1994
(Grootaert ’002)
In addition to Whelan, the examiner relies on the following
prior art references as evidence of unpatentability:
Patel et al. 3,712,877 Jan. 23, 1973
(Patel)
Apotheker et al. 4,035,565 Jul. 12, 1977
(Apotheker)
Pustka 4,323,956 Apr. 6, 1982
Grootaert et al. 4,882,390 Nov. 21, 1989
(Grootaert ’390)
Hammar et al. 5,461,133 Oct. 24, 1995
(Hammar)
Claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 23 on appeal
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
violating the written description requirement of the statute.
(Examiner’s answer mailed Feb. 25, 2003, paper 19, pages 4-7.)3
3 Although the statement of the rejection includes the
phrase “not enabling” (answer, p. 4), the examiner provides
sufficient notice that the rejection is based on lack of written
description, not enablement (p. 3, ll. 1-4; pp. 4-7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007