Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
to define his own terms and improperly adopted a definition of ‘monolithic’
that is contrary to the definition repeatedly and expressly stated by
Appellant.” (Id.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. While Appellant
urges that simple contact caused by gravity does not constitute direct
engagement, claim 21 encompasses any degree of engagement. Because
Decrop’s two monolithically formed arcuate members must fit together
when the device is assembled, we agree with the Examiner that Decrop
meets the engagement limitation.
Specifically, Decrop’s two monolithically formed arcuate members
are gutter-shaped. (Decrop Translation 3 (“[T]he other two components are
two gutters 2 and 3 that each correspond to a half-arch . . . .”). When the
device is assembled, these gutters overlap. (Decrop, Figures 2, 3, 7.) For
the two members to overlap as depicted, one of the gutter-shaped arcuate
members must fit inside the other when the device is assembled.
Because one of the gutter-shaped members must fit inside the other
when the device is assembled, we agree with the Examiner that Decrop
describes a dental impression tray having two monolithically formed arcuate
members that directly engage each other. Because Decrop’s dental
impression tray is adjustable, the two monolithically formed arcuate
members also rotate in relation to each other, providing an arcuate channel
of adjustable curvature.
Appellant further argues that Decrop does not anticipate claim 21
because Decrop requires at least four components to provide a functional
impression tray, whereas a fully functional impression tray is provided when
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013