Appeal No. 2007-1111 Page 8
Application No. 10/126,804
allowing cleanup of the adhesive before hardening, yet not being distinctive after
hardening.” Answer, page 8. Based on this evidence the examiner finds “it
would have been obvious in view of this admission, to make the adhesive of the
dental appliance of . . .[‘653] with such a color-changeable dye.” Id.
For their part appellants do not dispute that adhesives with color
changeable dye were known in the art prior to the date of their invention. See
e.g., Answer, page 11. Instead, appellants assert that the admission in their
specification fails to make up for the deficiencies in the combination of ‘653,
Wilcox, Akao, and Keller as discussed above. Brief, page 12. Having found no
deficiency in the combination of ‘653, Wilcox, Akao, and Keller we are not
persuaded by appellants’ assertion to the contrary. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of ‘653, Wilcox, Akao, Keller and appellants’ admitted prior art.
Claims 14, 27 and 28 fall together with claim 13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Lora M. Green ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
Nancy J. Linck )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013