Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
Thus, Wentzel’s device contains an arcuate member monolithically
formed as a single unit, and that arcuate member comprises engagement
members extending from it, as required by claim 23. Because we agree that
Wentzel describes a device having all of the elements required in claim 23,
we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 23 over Wentzel.
Appellant argues that Wentzel does not anticipate claim 24 because
“Wentzel does not disclose a monolithically formed arcuate member having
a post, as required by the present invention. Again, Wentzel teaches screws
39 that are not monolithically formed as part of either of members A or B.
Accordingly, such screws 39 cannot anticipate Appellant's post.” (Br. 8.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claim 24 recites
“[t]he dental impression tray as defined in claim 23, wherein said
engagement member comprises a post.”
As discussed supra, claim 23 encompasses Wentzel’s dental
impression tray having a monolithically formed arcuate member with screws
extending from it, and therefore anticipates claim 23. Because the screws in
Wentzel’s device are encompassed by the term “post” in claim 24, we also
agree with the Examiner that Wentzel anticipates claim 24. We therefore
affirm the rejection of claim 24 over Wentzel.
Appellant argues that Wentzel does not anticipate claim 25 because
“Wentzel does not disclose one arcuate member having an aperture engaging
an engagement member monolithically extending from another arcuate
member, as claimed by Appellant.” (Br. 8.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Claim 25 recites
“[t]he dental impression tray as defined in claim 24, wherein said second
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013