Appeal No. 2000-1998 Page 7
Application No. 08/828,523
insertion of the bite blocks into the patient’s mouth. Following
the teachings of Halstrom, an oral appliance comprising an upper
arch having a post extending downwardly therefrom, as recited in
each of the independent claims, for contacting a surface of the
lower arch does not result until the stylus has been threaded
into the upper arch. Such threading of the stylus into the upper
arch, however, also results in coupling of the lower arch to the
upper arch and must occur prior to insertion of the upper and
lower arches into the patient’s mouth. Consequently, Kelly and
Halstrom do not teach or suggest an oral appliance comprising an
upper arch having a post extending downwardly therefrom and a
lower arch uncoupled from the upper arch until the appliance is
inserted into the user’s mouth, as required by independent claims
28 and 45, or a method comprising inserting an upper arch having
a post extending downwardly therefrom and a lower arch into a
user’s mouth, with the lower arch uncoupled from the upper arch
at the time of insertion, as called for in independent claim 47.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the teachings of
Kelly and Halstrom are not sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims
28, 45 and 47, or of claims 29-34 and 36-38 which depend from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007