Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
said first arcuate member directly engaging said second
arcuate member to provide relative rotation therebetween; and
said first and second arcuate members forming an arcuate
receiving channel of adjustable curvature.
33. An adjustable dental impression tray, comprising:
a first arcuate member monolithically formed as a single
unit, said first arcuate member comprising an engagement
member;
a second arcuate member monolithically formed as a
single unit, said second arcuate member comprising an aperture
formed to directly engage said engagement member of said first
arcuate member to provide relative rotation therebetween;
and at least one of said first and second arcuate members
comprising at least one breakable notch formed along a length
thereof.
Thus, claims 21 and 33 are both directed to a dental impression tray
comprising of two monolithically formed arcuate, or curved, members.
Appellant and the Examiner disagree on the meaning of the term
“monolithically formed.” The Examiner cites a dictionary that defines
monolithic as meaning “cast as a single piece [or] formed or composed of
material without joints or seams [or] consisting of or constituting a single
unit.” (Answer 6.)
Appellant argues that this definition would make the phrase
“monolithically formed as a single unit” redundant. (Br. 6, fn.1.) Appellant
argues that “[i]t is well established that, ‘a patentee may choose to be his
own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary
meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the
patent specification or file history.’” (Br. 6, quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013