Appeal No. 2005-0966 6
Application No. 09/897,317
antenna (i.e., 42) located outside the cheek (Fig. 2) or at the base of the gums (Fig. 3a),
we see the embodiment of the tool shown in Figure 5 of Stevens to be different than
that shown in Figures 2 and 3a of the patent. More particularly, we note that Stevens
expressly indicates that the element (422) located at the distal end of the tool (401) is
an “antenna” and more specifically that it is an “unbalanced antenna, in which the
electrical currents flowing on a portion of the exterior of the surface of body 410 coact
with similar currents flowing on center conductor extension 414e to effect the antenna
radiation” (col. 4, line 67 - col. 5, line 3). Note also the disclosure at column 5, lines 20-
26, wherein connection of the source (e.g., 50) to the tool (401) and antenna is
described, and wherein it is made clear that the antenna (422) is operational without
including a second electrode (42) located outside the cheek as in Figure 2 or at the
base of the gums as in Figure 3a.
As for appellant’s argument that the tool of Stevens does not include disclosure
that “microwave energy is applied at a frequency and power to preferentially heat
caries,” we again note that the claims on appeal are directed to a microwave dental
system and hand-held tool per se, and not to a method of using such a tool to treat
dental caries. Moreover, we share the examiner’s view that given the wide range of
uses disclosed in Stevens (e.g., col. 3, line 64 - col. 4, line 4), it is apparent that the tool
of Stevens operates over a wide power and frequency range and thus would inherently
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007