Ex Parte Seghatol - Page 7




               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