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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007