Appeal No. 2000-1998 Page 6
Application No. 08/828,523
proffered any reason why one skilled in the art would have been
led to provide a threaded post on the Kelly splint to permit
removal of the upper arch (member) from the lower arch (member).
In any event, even assuming that one skilled in the art
would have been led to combine the teachings of Kelly and
Halstrom as proposed by the examiner, this would still not arrive
at the claimed invention.5 In particular, we note that the
threaded stylus 46 of Halstrom, which the examiner apparently
proposes providing on the Kelly splint in place of the integral
pillar(s) 13, must be coupled, by threading, to the upper bite
block 28 prior to insertion of the upper and lower bite blocks
into the patient’s mouth. While the base plate 56 bonded to the
lower bite block 32 is provided with a central aperture 64 to
allow access to the stylus head 48 to permit threading and
unthreading of the stylus 46 into the upper bite block 28 (column
5, lines 56-60), it is apparent that the aperture 64, by virtue
of its location on the underside of the lower bite block, can be
accessed by a screwdriver or other suitable tool only prior to
5 It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In
re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA 1974)) and that all
words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art (In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(CCPA 1970)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007