Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
engages center portion 22 of the other tray.” Thus, as disclosed by Wentzel,
“tongue portion 31 extends to the left of central portion 32 into a recess 27
provided in the base of member A.” (Wentzel, col. 3, ll. 26-28.)
Thus, the curved shape of the tongue portion in one tray fits into a
correspondingly shaped recess in the other tray, with the trays being
moveable in relation to each other. We agree with the Examiner that
Wentzel’s two monolithically formed curved members A and B engage
sufficiently to provide relative rotation between them, as required in
claim 21. While the screws and nuts in Wentzel’s device may be considered
additional engagement members, claim 21’s use of the term “comprising”
encompasses the presence of those elements in the overall device. See
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language
which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may
be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”).
Appellant urges that “when one monolithically formed arcuate
member (i.e., an arcuate member formed without joints or seams) directly
engages another, as claimed by Appellant, a fully functioning, two-
component impression tray is formed.” (Br. 7.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 21 is not limited to a
two component impression tray. Rather, claim 21 recites a dental
impression tray having two curved units which engage each other to provide
relative rotation between the two units, and which form a receiving channel
of adjustable curvature. Wentzel describes a dental impression tray having
the claimed elements, and additional elements as well (e.g., screws).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013