Appeal No. 1999-0090
Application 08/239,700
lie along the curve of Spee as segments thereof (similar to appellant's Fig. 2). We do not consider that
one of ordinary skill would regard Heckhausen's disclosure that the last few teeth be "set up
individually, although in one piece, in accordance with the average value of the compensating curve
(articulation curve)" (page 2, line 12 to 14) as suggesting that the chewing surfaces of the teeth, taken
together, form a continuous curve (as shown in appellant's Fig. 2). This is particularly the case since
Heckhausen shows in Fig. 2 two adjoining upper teeth 11, 12, each having at its lower end a radius
which is apparently about a center located on the centerline of the individual tooth, rather than the lower
ends both having a radius emanating from a common center of curvature.
Claims 4 to 6
These claims each recite that the teeth are "designed to function along" certain curves. For
example, claim 4 recites:
4. Artificial cuspless posterior upper and lower teeth designed to function along the
restored curves of Spee in an anterior posterior direction.
Unlike the expression "configured to conform to" in claims 1 to 3, we do not find any antecedent basis
in appellant's specification for the expression "designed to function along". See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1).
In order to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the claim language, when
read by a person of ordinary skill in light of the specification, must describe the subject matter with
sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed subject matter are distinct,
In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975), i.e., a claim must reasonably
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007