Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
Wentzel discloses that the screws 39 of member B pass through two
elongated slots 29 in member A. (Wentzel, Figures 1, 2, and 3.)
As is evident from Figures 1, 2, and 3, because of their elongated
shapes, the slots at best can only contact portions of the screws, and will
therefore never fully surround the screws. (See also, Wentzel, col. 3, ll. 54-
58 (“The screws 39 pass through the slots 29 which are each of a width
greater than that of the screws 39 so as to allow the utmost freedom of
adjustment and shifting of the members A and B with respect to each other.”
(emphasis added).)
Wentzel therefore describes apertures which surround only a portion
of the engagement members, as recited in claim 34. We affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 34 over Wentzel and Skarky.
Appellant argues that Wentzel and Skarky fail to render claim 40
obvious. (Br. 13.) Specifically, Appellant argues that “the combination of
Wentzel and Skarky fails to teach or suggest a monolithically formed arcuate
member having a locking member,” and that “the combination does not
teach or suggest 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.” (Id.)
Claim 40 reads:
40. The adjustable dental impression tray as defined in
claim 33, 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
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013