Ex Parte Skinner - Page 12

               Appeal No. 2007-0392                                                                   
               Application No. 10/427,733                                                             

                    arcuate member, wherein engagement of the locking member                          
                    with each receiving aperture of the plurality of receiving                        
                    apertures provides a registered position corresponding to a                       
                    particular curvature.                                                             
                    In addition to disclosing that the first arcuate member B has screws              
               attached to it, Wentzel discloses that “[t]he screws 39 each have clamping             
               nuts 40 threaded thereon for the purpose of clamping the members A and B               
               to each other in their adjusted positions.”  (Col. 3, ll. 59-62.)  Thus, Wentzel       
               describes a dental impression tray having a monolithically formed arcuate              
               member comprising a locking member, as recited in claim 32.                            
                    Wentzel also discloses that “[t]he screws 39 pass through the slots 29            
               [in member A] which are each of a width greater than that of the screws 39             
               so as to allow the utmost freedom of adjustment and shifting of the members            
               A and B with respect to each other.”  (Col. 3, ll. 54-58.)  Wentzel therefore          
               also describes a dental impression tray having a plurality of apertures which          
               allow for positional adjustment and locking of the device at various stages of         
               rotation or curvature.  Because Wentzel describes a device having all of the           
               claimed elements, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of                   
               claim 32 over Wentzel.                                                                 
                    To summarize, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25,                 
               27, 28, 31, 32, 41, and 42, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by                 
               Wentzel.                                                                               







                                                 12                                                   

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013