Appeal No. 2003-175 Page 2
Application No. 09/838,950
claims is under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of enablement.1 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
We reverse.
OPINION
Claim 1 is directed to a dental composition and each of the rejected claims places a
further limit on the composition of claim 1. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A dental composition comprising:
(a) a part A comprising discrete, solid particles of a polymer comprising acid
functionality dispersed in a polymerizable component; and
(b) a part B comprising water;
wherein the composition further comprises an oxidizing agent, a reducing
agent, and a reactive filler in at least one of part A and part B.
The further limits at issue in the rejected claims are in the form of concentration ranges
for particular components of the dental composition of claim 1. Claim 7 is illustrative:
7. The dental composition of claim 1 comprising about 5 to about 75 parts polymerizable
component, based on the total weight of the composition.
What the Examiner focuses on is the “about” before the upper limit of the range in each
of the rejected claims. This “about” was not present in the original claims. For instance, claim 7,
which previously read “about 5 to 75 parts” now reads “about 5 to about 75 parts” (emphasis
1The rejections maintained in the Final Rejection, but not reproduced in the Answer are treated as having
been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007