Appeal 2007-4070
Application 10/625,531
if the first metal wire is laid along the posterior
surface of a dental arch (column 1 line 64) and the
wire rest extends from the first wire and rests on a
top surface of the dental arch as shown in figure 1,
the wire rest would have to exhibit a change in
dimensional direction (i.e., extending upward from
the back of a tooth and curving forward to the top
of the tooth) which may be described as "L-
shaped" (Answer at 4).
[17] As to claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10, Appellant argued that "[n]o reference
numerals are provided in the rejection and no such structure [i.e., a
wire rest spaced from the end of the first wire, having a first section
attached to the first wire and extending toward the second wire and
being L-shaped] is seen by Applicant" (Br. at 3-4).
[18] As to claims 6 and 9, Appellant argued that not only was the structure
which the Examiner considered as the wire rest unclear in Harima
Figure 1, but also that Harima did not support the modification
proposed by the Examiner (Br. at 4).
Other findings of fact are cited as necessary below.
III. Anticipation
Anticipation requires disclosure of each and every claim limitation in
a single prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently. MEHL/Biophile
Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Here, we agree with the Examiner that Harima explicitly
discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 (FF 9–13). Appellant argues
that the Examiner did not identify by reference numeral(s) where Figure 1 of
Harima showed the pair of wire rests recited in claim 1 and Appellant could
not see such structures (FF 17). In response, the Examiner annotated
Harima Figure 1 by circling the structures found to satisfy the wire rest
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013