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). 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007