Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
Appellant argues that Wentzel does not anticipate claim 23 because
“Wentzel does not disclose a monolithically formed arcuate member having
an extending engagement member, as claimed by Appellant. Instead,
Wentzel teaches screws 39 that are not monolithically formed as part of
either of members A or B. Accordingly, such screws 39 cannot anticipate
Appellant's extending engagement member.” (Br. 7.)
We do not find this argument persuasive.
Claim 23 recites “[t]he dental impression tray as defined in claim 21,
wherein said first arcuate member comprises an engagement member
extending therefrom.” Thus, claim 21 requires the device’s first arcuate
member to be monolithically formed, and claim 23 adds the requirement that
the arcuate member has an engagement member that extends from it.
Claim 23 requires only that the engagement member extend from the first
arcuate member. We therefore interpret claim 23 to encompass an arcuate
monolithic member attached to an engagement member that extends from it,
whether or not the engagement member is monolithically formed as part of
the arcuate member.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Wentzel discloses that “[t]he first
arcuate member comprises an engagement member 39 extending therefrom.”
(Answer 3.) Specifically, Wentzel discloses that one of the arcuate members
has screws mounted in it. (Wentzel, col. 3, ll. 49-52 (“The head portion of a
screw member 39 is secured in the forwardly extending portion 30 of the
member B, whereas the head portion of another screw 39 is mounted in the
central portion 32 of the member B . . . .”).)
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013