Appeal 2007-2566
Application 10/243,873
substantially transparent to light and opaque to x-
rays that make an aesthetic restoration (column 2
line 59) as well as aid in diagnostic procedures to
the dentist (column 1 line 62) in view of Bowen
[Answer 3].
B. Appellants' position
Appellants argue that Bowen does not disclose any values for the
refractive index of resin, i.e., that Bowen's recitation of "about nD 1.55" at
column 1, lines 58-59, refers to the refractive index of Bowen's glass (Br. 4).
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine Bachmann
and Bowen because Bowen teaches that the relative refractive indices of the
fiber and the resin are considered when aesthetics of the composite material
are a concern and the pin of Bachmann is not visible because it is covered
(Br. 5).
C. Discussion
Patentability determinations are fact-intensive. Facts relevant to a
determination of obviousness include determining the scope and content of
the prior art. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a dental composite material
comprising fibers embedded in a resin matrix wherein the composite resin
has a refractive index within 0.15 of the refractive index of the fibers.
Appellants argue that Bowen fails to disclose any values for refractive
indices of resins used to form the resin matrix of a dental composite (Br. 4).
Specifically, Appellants contend that the disclosure at column 1, lines 58-59,
of Bowen does not refer to the refractive index of composite resins (Br. 4).
We disagree.
[20] At column 1, lines 54-60, Bowen discloses:
Essential features of the filler for composite
materials, where aesthetics of the composite
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013