Appeal 2007-3494
Application 10/348,719
following removal from the mouth, and we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument.
Appellant argues that Millstein fails to disclose a wafer wherein
diagnostic information is obtained from the deformation of the form wherein
a size of an orthodontic appliance is based on the diagnostic information
from the form. (Br. 12.)
Millstein, however, discloses that their invention provides a
permanent record of an occlusal position useful for the diagnosis and
treatment of various dental problems, such as for periodontics, orthodontics
and restorative dentistry. (Millstein, col. 1, ll. 25-30.) Other uses include
the fabrication of dental bridges and prosthetic replacements. (Id. at ll. 32-
38.) Therefore, the occlusal strips described in Millstein are used for
diagnostic information and for the sizing of orthodontic applicances, as
claimed.
Appellant essentially claims a benefit or characteristic of an invention
otherwise in the prior art, and it is well settled that “the new realization alone
does not render the old invention patentable.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In view of the above, we affirm the anticipation rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013