Appeal 2007-3494
Application 10/348,719
examined and subsequently receive a diagnosis of their medical conditions.
The present invention further provides an apparatus, a system and a method
for one or more users to receive a corrective dental apparatus depending on
their medical conditions." (Specification 1.)
Anticipation
Diesso
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Diesso. We select claim 1 as representative of the rejection before us since
Appellant has not separately argued the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that
Diesso shows a form 10 for taking an impression of upper and
lower teeth (see Fig. 6) comprising a form, shaped to
correspond to the shape of the upper and lower teeth, which fits
inside the mouth and is made form [sic] a material capable of
being bitten to create a deformation of the form corresponding
to the upper and lower teeth, wherein the form retains the
deformation upon removal from the mouth. The form is flat in
an area which contacts the upper teeth. . . . As to claim 3, note
the wall 24 which contacts the upper teeth (Fig. 6). As to claim
6, note that the form is constructed of a pressure-sensitive film
26.
(Answer 3-4.)
The standard under § 102 is one of strict identity. "Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art
reference for it to anticipate the claim." Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Every element of the
claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013