Ex Parte Skinner - Page 13

               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