Appeal 2007-3494
Application 10/348,719
functional dental devices are designed. (Diesso, col. 2, ll. 17-30.) Thus, we
find that diagnostic information is obtained from the device of Diesso to
prepare and size dental prosthetic devices.
In view of the above, we affirm the anticipation rejection.
Millstein
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Millstein.
The Examiner finds that
Millstein discloses a form for taking an impression of upper and
lower teeth (column 2, lines 21-25) comprising a form 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 (column 2, lines 25-
26), wherein the form retains the deformation upon removal
from the mouth. As to claim 7, note that the form is constructed
from a photo-sensitive film (column 2, lines 20-21). . . . If the
prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use,
then it meets the claim
(Answer 4.)
We agree that the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to
support a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellant contends Millstein fails to disclose a form that retains the
deformation following removal from the mouth. (Br. 12.) The Examiner
responds that Millstein discloses the "strain pattern is caused by permanent
local deformations in the wafer." (Answer 7 (citing col. 2, ll. 25-26).) Thus,
it would reasonably appear that the form of Millstein retains the deformation
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013