Appeal 2007-2566
Application 10/243,873
The rejections under review in this appeal are: Claims 1 and 2 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bachmann in view of
Bowen. Claims 3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Bachmann in view of Bowen and Karmaker. (Answer3 3.)
Appellants have separated the claims into two groups, i.e., claims 1-2
and claims 3-10 (Br.4 4-7). However, Appellants have not provided separate
patentability arguments for any of claims 2-10. Therefore, we decide this
appeal on the basis of claim 1. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(v).
II. Findings of Fact (FF)
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record. To the extent any "finding of fact" is a conclusion of
law, it should be so treated.
A. Appellants' specification
[1] According to the specification, composite dental pins are replacing
metal pins of the past which can corrode and become disconnected
(Specification 1:7-16).
[2] Composite pins comprising synthetic fibers embedded in a synthetic
resin, e.g., an epoxy resin, are said to be mechanically strong but
tranparent to, and not easily visualized by, X-rays (Specification 1:13
to 2:8).
[3] Photopolymerizable adhesives are said to be desirable, but
problematic, to use to fix a dental pin to a root canal because of the
difficulty in irradiating the bottom of the root canal with light
3 Examiner's Answer ("Answer") mailed February 27, 2006.
4 Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed December 2, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013