Appeal No. 1999-2625
Application 08/763,929
pending in the application. We reverse. 2
The invention relates to “a one-piece customizable dental
appliance for use by athletes” (specification, page 1). A
copy of the claims on appeal appears in the appendix to the
appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 11).3
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Ross 2,833,278 May
6, 1958
Lerman 3,532,091 Oct. 6,
1970
Kittelsen et al. (Kittelsen) 4,977,905 Dec.
18, 1990
Poterack 5,386,821 Feb. 7,
1995
Claims 1 through 13, 15 and 17 through 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
the appellant regards as the invention.
2Claims 1 and 13 have been amended subsequent to final
rejection.
3 Claims 13 and 15 appear to be substantial duplicates of
claims 2 and 5, respectively. Attention is directed to MPEP
§ 706.03(k).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007