Appeal No. 2005-0966 4
Application No. 09/897,317
obviousness-type double patenting, but has instead indicated that a terminal disclaimer
will be filed once all other grounds of rejection have been resolved. Given that no
terminal disclaimer has been filed by appellant and no argument made with respect to
this ground of rejection in either the brief or reply brief, we summarily sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, 13, 14 and 16 based on obviousness-type
double patenting.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Stevens, we note that Stevens discloses a microwave dental system comprising a
hand-held dental tool (Fig. 5) including: an antenna (422) positioned at a distal end of
the tool and sized and configured to be selectively positioned within a mouth of a patient
adjacent at least one tooth, a wave guide connectable (at 440) to the tool body and
antenna, and a source of microwave energy (e.g., 50) operably coupled to the wave
guide for controlling delivery of microwave energy to the wave guide (see, e.g., col. 3,
lines 33-34). As noted in the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4, the amount of
energy supplied to the tool of Stevens
may be selected to slightly warm the region to enhance the efficacy of a
disinfectant liquid or to improve blood flow, to heat sufficiently to disinfect
in the absence of a disinfectant liquid, or to kill tissue or coagulate it into a
cohesive mass, or to cause a glazing of tooth structure aimed at
decreasing its permeability to fluids or microorganisms, or to melt sealing
material evenly in the root canal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007