Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
adhesive to allow more working time in the mouth for the
practitioner to position the orthodontic bracket at the precise
position desired on the tooth surface before the adhesive is
activated for hardening by exposure to a light source.
Everything in Randklev is directed to that end. Nothing in
Randklev discloses or suggests otherwise. Moreover, nothing in
Randklev discloses or suggests use of a two-part adhesive like
that defined in the present application (see page 4 of
appellants’ specification), or an orthodontic bracket like that
defined in independent claim 1 on appeal, wherein the bracket
carries a first part of an at least two-part adhesive of the
particular composition set forth therein, with the further
proviso that the first part is not a light-curable adhesive.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Randklev would not have made the subject matter as a
whole of independent claim 1 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention, we must
refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of that claim, and
claims 2, 3, 7, 9 through 12, 16 through 21, 24, 25 and 27 which
depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007