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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013