Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
The examiner’s basic position concerning the rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 7, 9 through 12, 16 through 21, 24, 25 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randklev is
set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection and page 5 of
the answer. As shown in Figure 2 of Randklev and described at
column 3, line 58, et seq., that patent discloses an orthodontic
bracket (6) provided with a layer (4) of light-curable adhesive
sandwiched between the base (5) of the bracket and a release
substrate (8).
Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows:
1. An article comprising:
an orthodontic bracket having a base for bonding the
bracket to a tooth;
a first part of an at least two-part adhesive on the base of
the bracket, the first part comprising a polymerizable component,
a polymerization initiator, and at least about 10% by weight,
based on the total weight of the first part, of a filler
comprising a silica filler, with the proviso that the first part
is not a light-curable adhesive; and
a release substrate comprising a surface in contact with the
first part.
According to the examiner, to call the adhesive set forth in
appellants’ claim 1 a first part “is merely terminology and/or
intended use with a second-part which are given no patentable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007