Appeal No. 1999-2625
Application 08/763,929
examiner has rejected claims 1 and 13, as well as the claims
depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
fundamental rationale that “Poterack (column 4, lines 37-40)
teaches that the band may be formed to fit snug along the
patient’s lower jaw; to have formed the Ross Figure 10 band in
the manner taught by Poterack would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art” (answer, page 6). Presumably,
this modification would provide Ross’ band with the
inclination required by claims 1 and 13. While Poterack’s
band or rib 14 is indeed inclined to fit snugly against the
upper or lower front teeth, the inclination is necessitated by
the particular relationship between the pads or wedges 12a and
12b of Poterack’s bite block and the patient’s teeth and the
need to provide a clearance between the upper and lower teeth
to accommodate intubation (see Figure 8). The relationship
between Ross’ pads or channel members 41a and 41b and the
teeth differs from that disclosed by Poterack and results in
Ross’ band 42 overlying the front teeth without the need for
any inclination. In this light, it is not evident why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found any suggestion or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007