Appeal No. 2005-0966 7
Application No. 09/897,317
be capable of applying microwave energy at a frequency and power to preferentially
heat caries. This is especially true since both appellant and Stevens disclose the use of
microwave energy at a frequency and power level to disinfect and therapeutically treat
teeth or to kill infected tissue in teeth, and since appellant’s own specification (page 4,
lines 1-7) indicates that those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present
invention would have been aware of the higher absorbency behavior of carious tissue
when irradiated by microwave energy as compared to the lower absorbency of
microwave energy by healthy enamel and dentin, thereby providing preferential heating
of caries. Thus, heating via microwave energy as in Stevens, whether at a frequency
and power level to disinfect a tooth or kill infected tissue therein, or at a frequency and
power level to cause a glazing of tooth structure aimed at decreasing its permeability to
fluids and micro-organisms, would clearly provide preferential heating of caries in the
tooth vis-a-vis healthy enamel and dentin of the tooth even though Stevens does not
specifically address such heating.
Contrary to appellant’s assertions in the brief (page 5), we do not see that the
uses expressly taught by Stevens are “much different than the use of heating caries
material as disclosed in the present invention.” Moreover, we find no clear line of
reasoning or evidence provided by appellant to support any such conclusion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007