In the first Office Action, the claims were rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. The specification does not define the phrase “original unidentified mass,” which was introduced into the claims during prosecution.

(1) heating an original unidentified mass of thermosetting* material to a predetermined temperature range at which the thermosetting material becomes pliable, ․ The patent contains two claims, both of which are independent method claims reciting, inter alia, the following step:

After cooling to body temperature, the polycaprolactone mold is rigid, thus forming an impression. The ′498 patent discloses that polycaprolactone, after being heated to the point of pliability (approximately 140☏), can be comfortably molded directly over a person's teeth, without the need for a tray or container. The invention of the ′498 patent improves this process by utilizing less expensive materials and reducing the patient's “chair time.” Id. The ′498 patent describes the prior art impression process as utilizing a suitably sized tray filled with alginet and then placing the tray over the tooth or teeth of which an impression is desired as the alginet sets, it forms an impression of the area of interest. Dentists typically form an impression of a patient's tooth or teeth as part of the process for constructing a crown, cap, or other dental appliance. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.Īdvantage owns the ′498 patent, which is directed to a method for making a custom dental impression tray. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact that All Dental does not infringe the patent, we affirm that portion of the judgment. Because the ′498 patent has not been shown to be invalid, we reverse that portion of the judgment. Patent 5,213,498 is invalid and not infringed by All Dental. appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting the declaratory judgment plaintiffs All Dental Prodx, LLC and DMG Dental-Material Gesellschaft mbH (collectively, “All Dental”) summary judgment that Advantage Dental's U.S. Sprinkle, Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C., of Birmingham, MI, argued for defendant-appellant.Īdvantage Dental Products, Inc. Butler,Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Decided: October 25, 2002īefore NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge. ADVANTAGE DENTAL PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit.ĪLL DENTAL PRODX, LLC and DMG Dental-Material Gesellschaft MBH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

Dmg products inc logo