Appeal No. 2007-1111 Page 3
Application No. 10/126,804
DISCUSSION
The combination of ‘653, Wilcox, Akao and Keller:
Claim 1-9, 15-17, 19-23, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of ‘653, Wilcox, Akao and Keller. As
set forth above, we limit our discussion to claim 1. The examiner finds that ‘653
discloses a container for storing an orthodontic/dental bracket including a
photocurable adhesive. In this regard, the examiner finds ‘653 discloses a
container comprising a sidewall, bottom and flange that are integrally formed
from a sheet of flexible material. Answer, page 4, and ‘653, column 4, lines 37-
40. From this the examiner reasons that ‘653 meets the requirement of
appellants’ claimed invention that the container be molded. 1 Id. In addition, ‘653
discloses that the material used to form the container “provides a substantial
barrier to the transmission of light . . .” ‘653, column 4, lines 37-40.
The examiner finds that Wilcox teaches “that a container of an adhesive
material which one does not wish to be exposed to light may be made by
injection molding to form the container into a shape for receiving the adhesive.”
Answer, page 4. In this regard, the examiner finds that Wilcox teaches “that the
container may be made with pigments [(such as carbon black)] incorporated/
dispersed into the injection moldable material to prevent actinic light (i.e. all
active light) from reaching the adhesive. . . .” Answer, page 5; and Wilcox,
column 5, lines 24-29.
1 According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), to the extent that “‘formed’ means ‘molded’,
[a]ppellant’s [sic] claim language with respect to molding is met by this. Moreover, it is apparent
and therefore obvious that the container of document EPO 653 is molded in some manner,
although the document does not particularly disclose molding the container.” We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013