Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
members that directly engage, and Skarky dos not make up for this
deficiency. (Id.)
As pointed out by Appellant, “obviousness requires a suggestion of all
limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
1342, 68 USPQ2d 1940, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d
981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974)).
However, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of
nonobviousness. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that
Wentzel describes a dental impression tray having two monolithically
formed arcuate members that engage as required in claim 33. Skarky
teaches that breakable notches were desirable in dental impression trays for
situations requiring only partial impressions. We therefore agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include
such notches in Wentzel’s impression tray, as recited in claim 33.
Because Wentzel and Skarky would have made obvious the product of
claim 33, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of that claim.
Claims 26, 29, 30, 35-39, and 41-44 fall with claim 33.
Appellant argues that Wentzel and Skarky do not render claim 34
obvious because “the combination of Wentzel and Skarky fails to teach or
suggest an aperture that is open to surround only a portion of the
engagement member, as claimed by Appellant. As can be seen, all apertures
taught by Wentzel and Skarky are all fully closed.” (Br. 12.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Claim 34 recites
“[t]he adjustable dental impression tray as defined in claim 33, wherein said
aperture is open to surround only a portion of said engagement member.”
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013