Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
arcuate member, wherein engagement of the locking member
with each receiving aperture of the plurality of receiving
apertures provides a registered position corresponding to a
particular curvature.
Thus, claim 40 is substantially identical to claim 32, except that claim
40 depends from claim 33.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 32, Wentzel describes a
dental impression tray having a plurality of apertures which allow for
positional adjustment and locking of the device at various stages of rotation
or curvature. Therefore, we agree that claim 40 would have been obvious
over Wentzel and Skarky. We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 40.
3. ANTICIPATION BY DECROP
Claims 21-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 41-43 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Decrop. 3 (Answer 4.) The
Examiner states that Decrop discloses a dental impression tray having two
arcuate members, 2 and 3, both monolithically formed as single units. (Id.)
The Examiner urges that “[t]he first arcuate member selectively engages the
second arcuate member to provide relative rotation therebetween. The first
and second arcuate members form an arcuate receiving channel of adjustable
curvature.” (Id.)
Appellant argues that Decrop does not anticipate claim 21 because
Decrop does not disclose a monolithically formed first arcuate member that
directly engages a monolithically formed second arcuate member. (Br. 9.)
“In asserting the contrary, the Examiner has again ignored Appellant's right
3Decrop, FR 2 551 654 A1, published March 15, 1985.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013