Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 26, 29, 30, and 33-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wentzel in view of Skarky.2 (Answer 5.) The
Examiner states that Wentzel discloses the claimed invention “except for at
least one of the first and second arcuate members comprising a breakable
notch.” (Id.)
To meet that limitation, the Examiner cites Skarky (col. 4, line 48
through col. 5, line 25) as disclosing “an impression tray having breakable
notches 72, 74, 76, 78 formed in the outer wall and notche[s] 90, 94, 98, 102
formed along the length of the platform such that the size of the tray can be
shorte[ne]d when only an impression of a partial arch is required.” (Id.)
Based on these teachings, the Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide
the dental tray of Wen[t]zel with a breakable notch formed in
the outer wall and a breakable notch formed along a length of
the platform of at least one of the first and second arcuate
members in view of Skarky in order to permit the size of the
tray can be shortened when only an impression of a partial arch
is required.”
(Id.)
Appellant argues that “with respect to claims 26, 29, 30, 33, 35-39,
and 41-44, the combination fails to teach or suggest a monolithically formed
first arcuate member directly engaging a monolithically formed second
arcuate member, as claimed by Appellant.” (Br. 12.) That is, Appellant
reasons that Wentzel does not disclose two monolithically formed arcuate
2 Skarky, U.S. Patent 4,432,728, issued February 21, 1984.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013