Appeal No. 2003-0645 4
Application No. 09/245,625
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence
of obviousness:
Hill et al. (Hill) 5,098,711 Mar. 24, 1992
Burch 5,433,226 Jul. 18, 1995
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Burch in combination with Hill (Answer,
page 3). We affirm this ground of rejection essentially for the
reasons in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Burch2 discloses dental floss fibers
with the same structure and properties as recited in the claims on
appeal (Answer, page 3). Appellants do not contest this finding
but agree with the examiner’s further finding that Burch does not
teach “impregnating” these dental floss fibers with a
chemotherapeutic agent (id.; Brief, pages 4 and 8).3 Therefore the
2 We note that Burch is also one of the appellants, and the Burch patent
is assigned to the real party in interest in this appeal (Delta Dental
Hygienics LLC; Brief, page 1, ¶(1)).
3 In the event of further or continuing prosecution of this claimed
subject matter, the examiner and appellants should consider the teaching of
Burch at col. 9, ll. 16-21, where Burch teaches that the “dental floss of the
instant invention” may also comprise added ingredients such as found in U.S.
Patent Nos. 2,667,443, 2,772,205, and 5,280,796. These three patents,
incorporated by reference into Burch, teach the same or similar methods of
adding an active ingredient to the dental floss fiber, as discussed below.
The examiner and appellants should consider whether these teachings, applied
to the dental floss fiber of Burch, would inherently produce an agent
“imbibed” in a fiber as now claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007