Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
arcuate member comprises an aperture, wherein said aperture is configured
to directly engage said engagement member of said first arcuate member to
support pivoting thereabout.”
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Wentzel
anticipates claim 24, because it describes a first monolithically formed
arcuate member having screws extending from it. As is evident from
Figures 1 and 2 of Wentzel, the second arcuate member has apertures that
accommodate those screws, the apertures being large enough to allow
positional adjustment of the two arcuate members.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Wentzel describes the dental
impression tray defined by claim 25. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 25 over Wentzel.
Appellant argues that Wentzel does not anticipate claim 32 because
“Wentzel does not disclose a monolithically formed arcuate member having
a locking member, as claimed by Appellant,” and because “Wentzel does not
disclose a monolithically formed arcuate member having a plurality of
receiving apertures positioned to periodically align and releaseably engage
the locking member at various stages of rotation of one arcuate member with
respect to the other, as claimed by Appellant.” (Br. 8.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Claim 32 reads as
follows:
32. The dental impression tray as defined in claim 21,
wherein one of said first and second arcuate members
comprises a locking member while the other comprises a
plurality of receiving apertures positioned to periodically align
and releasably engage said locking member at various stages of
rotation of the first arcuate member with respect to the second
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013