Appeal No. 2006-1282 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/361,899
is, the tweezer-like arrangements are described as sufficient
for the disclosed purpose, i.e., inserting into the mouth the
ball post 22 or crown 81. The situations requiring greater
forces, i.e. pulling teeth or cemented crowns, can only be
rectified by using the crown removal forceps 130. Thus, it is
respectfully submitted that the crown removal forceps 130 is
not suitable alternative to the ball gripping forceps 22 or the
crown gripping forceps 30 which are used for inserting into
the mouth the ball post 24 and the crown 81, respectively
[ reply brief at page 5].
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim
1 and claims 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 dependent thereon.
We will, however, sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 11 to 24 as
these claims do not depend on claim 1 and do not require that the first and second
gripping elements be rotatably coupled.
Therefore, the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons as
discussed above for the rejection of claims 11 to 15 and 17 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Shank.
Recognizing that Lee does not describe a stepped portion, the examiner relies on
Shank for teaching a stepped portion and concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Lee to include the stepped potions of Shank in
order to allow clearance for the body of the carried device
[answer at pages 4 to 5]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007