Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
the two monolithically formed arcuate members recited in claim 21 engage
each other. (Br. 10.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claim 21 does not
require a fully functioning two component impression tray.
Rather, claim 21 recites a dental impression tray having two curved
units which engage each other to provide relative rotation between the two
units, and which form a receiving channel of adjustable curvature. Decrop
describes a dental impression tray having these elements and additional
elements, as well. Because claim 21 encompasses the presence of additional
elements in the device, however, these additional elements do not undermine
Decrop’s anticipation of claim 21.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 21
over Decrop. Claims 27, 28, 31, 41, and 42 fall with claim 21.
Appellant argues that Decrop does not disclose the limitations present
in claims 22-25, 32, and 43. We agree with Appellant that Decrop does not
describe all the limitations of these claims. We therefore reverse the
anticipation rejection of those claims over Decrop.
To summarize, we affirm the anticipation rejection based on Decrop
with respect to claims 21, 27, 28, 31, 41, and 42, but reverse it with respect
to claims 22-25, 32, and 43.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 21-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 41, and 42
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wentzel, and the rejection
of claims 26, 29, 30, and 33-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Wentzel and Skarky.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013