Appeal No. 2003-0645 7
Application No. 09/245,625
any indication in the prior art that the chemical identity of the
floss fiber would have any effect on the loading or incorporation
of the agent into the floss fiber. To the contrary, Burch teaches
that chemotherapeutic agents may be incorporated into the
elastomeric floss of his invention (col. 9, ll. 16-21),
incorporating by reference three references which teach adding
chemotherapeutic agents to floss fibers by methods which are the
same or similar to those disclosed and claimed by appellants.4
Appellants argue that the combination of Burch and Hill does
not produce the claimed invention since Hill does not teach
imbibing or absorbing a chemotherapeutic agent into the fiber
(Brief, page 7). Appellants further argue that Hill “teaches away”
from imbibing or absorbing ingredients into the dental floss since
this reference teaches that it is “critical” that loading of the
active ingredient be accomplished into the interstitial spaces of
the floss (Brief, page 10; Reply Brief, page 3). Appellants submit
that a dictionary definition for “imbibed” means “absorbed” and
thus “imbibed in the fiber” as claimed is clearly distinguished
from the teachings of Hill that the “compositions employed are
4 E.g., see U.S. Patent No. 2,772,205, where the active ingredient may
be adsorbed upon the dental floss by treating any suitable floss with an
aqueous solution of this active ingredient (col. 2, ll. 40-53), and U.S.
Patent No. 2,667,443, where the yarn (floss) is soaked in a solution of water
and the chemical agent (col. 2, ll. 1-5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007