Appeal 2007-4070
Application 10/625,531
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 The Examiner relies
on the following prior art of record:
Harima US 4,725,230 Feb. 16, 1988
Harima qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 1-5, 7-8 and
10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Harima.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Harima.
II. Findings of Fact ("FF")
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
A. Appellant's Specification3
[1] Use of an orthodontic retainer for some time after orthodontic
treatment is said to be commonplace to prevent the teeth from
relapsing into their pretreatment condition (Specification ¶ 2).
[2] According to Appellant's specification, one object of the invention is
"to provide a retainer having a clasp and rest to prevent sinking of the
wire" (Specification ¶ 4).
[3] Figure 2 of the specification illustrates a preferred retainer having a
first wire 11, extending along the posterior surface of the dental arch
10, a second wire 12, extending in a loop along the anterior surface of
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of claims 1-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (Examiner's Answer ("Answer"), mailed 4
May 2006, at 2).
3 In this decision, the specification as originally filed on 24 July 2003 is
referred to as the "Specification." The specification as amended on 9
November 2004 is referred to as the "Amended Specification ('Am.
Specification')."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013