Appeal No. 1999-0212
Application No. 08/230,526
refer to the explanation beginning on line 45 of column 7 for
the teaching that bite piece 550 has an impression of the
patient’s teeth, that is, a mouthpiece, at its inner end which
is not shown in the drawing because it is within the patient’s
closed lips. This being the case, bite piece 550 constitutes
“a projection extending forward of the mouthpiece,” as
required by claim 1. Insofar as the removable connection is
concerned, Gill teaches that the mouthpiece can be removable
from the remainder of the skull reference apparatus, from
which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to do so with respect to the Guthrie apparatus.
Suggestion for such would have been found, in our view, in the
self-evident advantages thereof, such as ease of manufacture
of the custom mouthpiece obtained by having it removable from
the other portions of the device and the ability to utilize
these other portions with other mouthpieces, which would have
been evident to one of ordinary skill in the art, because in
an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of
the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007