Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
2. ANTICIPATION BY WENTZEL
Claims 21-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 41, and 42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wentzel.1 (Answer 3.) The
Examiner points out that Wentzel describes a dental impression tray
comprising two monolithically formed arcuate members that selectively
engage to provide rotation between them, and form an arcuate receiving
channel of adjustable curvature. (Id.)
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appellant argues that Wentzel does not anticipate claims 21, 22, 27,
28, 31, 41, and 42. (Br. 5-7, Reply Br. 2-3.) Specifically, Appellant argues
that Wentzel does not anticipate claim 21 under his definition of the term
“monolithic.” (Br. 6.) Appellant urges that Wentzel’s curved members
engage via screws and nuts that are not formed as parts of the members
“without joints or seams.” (Id.) Without the screws and nuts, argues
Appellant, “the best that members A and B can do is lay one on top of the
other. . . . An association caused by gravity does not anticipate an
engagement providing relative rotation between the two members.”
(Id. at 7.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. As argued by the
Examiner (Answer 6), Figures 1, 4, and 5 depict “the two arcuate members
rest[ing] directly on top of each other such that center portion 32 directly
1 Wentzel, U.S. Patent 2,594,832, issued April 29, 1952.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013