Ex Parte Andersson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

13562132 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/562,132 07/30/2012 Matts Andersson NOBELB.367C1 4447
20995 7590 09/25/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
SIVANESAN, SIVALINGAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTS ANDERS SON, JENNY FALDT,
and PER-OLOF KARLSSON
Appeal 2016-002493
Application 13/562,132
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 An oral hearing was held August 31, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Nobel Biocare Services AG as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-002493
Application 13/562,132
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to methods and systems “for obtaining
data for manufacturing a dental component and a physical dental model”
(Spec. 112).
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for manufacturing a dental component
and a physical dental model of at least a part of a dental
structure, the method comprising:
obtaining a first data record for manufacturing the dental
component, the first data record comprising information based
on a first portion of a digital dental model, the first portion of
the digital dental model generated using a first scanning
resolution;
obtaining a second data record for manufacturing the
physical dental model, the second data record comprising
information based on a second portion comprising at least the
first portion of the digital dental model, the second portion of
the digital dental model generated using a second scanning
resolution, the second scanning resolution being lower than the
first scanning resolution;
manufacturing at least the dental component based on the
first data record; and
manufacturing at least the physical dental model based
on the second data record.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5, 8—11, 13, 16, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durbin (US 2005/0177261
Al; Aug. 11, 2005) and Chapoulaud (US 2002/0028417 Al; Mar. 7, 2002)
(see Ans. 2—5) and further added Fisker (US 2009/0220916 Al; Sept. 3,
2
Appeal 2016-002493
Application 13/562,132
2009), Geng (US 2005/0089822 Al; Apr. 28, 2005), and Schulman (US
2004/0262797 Al; Dec. 30, 2004) to reject the remaining claims (see Ans. 5—
8).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Durbin
with Chapoulaud teaches or suggests manufacturing a physical dental model
based on a data record generated in part using a second scanning resolution,
“the second scanning resolution being lower than the first scanning
resolution,” as recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 173 (see App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 3—4).
The Examiner initially maps the disputed claim limitation to the first
and second digital dental model of Chapoulaud, which are generated using
first and second scanning resolutions (see Final Act. 16 (citing Chapoulaud
16 and 17)). In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds
low resolution scanning of the patient’s upper and lower jaws of Chapoulaud
meets that recited second resolution which is lower than the scanning
resolution used to produce the three-dimensional image file of each of the
teeth (Ans. 9-10 (citing Chapoulaud H 17 and 18)).
Relying on Chapoulaud paragraphs 17 and 66, Appellants argue the
low resolution scan in Chapoulaud is not used to manufacture any model in
general and Durbin’s physical model in particular (Reply Br. 3). As further
3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-002493
Application 13/562,132
argued by Appellants, Chapoulaud’s low scanning resolution is used “to
locate a physical model and to provide a basis for identifying the portion of
the scanned image that is of interest to be digitized” and “[t]he features
identified in the low resolution mode are scanned in a high resolution mode”
and “used to form the three-dimensional digital model, which is used to
design and manufacture an orthodontic appliance” (id. ). We are persuaded
by Appellants’ argument that the only data in Chapoulaud used for
manufacturing a physical model is the data from the high resolution scan,
and not the low resolution data. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained
how a combination with Durbin remedies this deficiency.
We therefore do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
1, nor of other independent claims 9 and 17 which recite a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. We also do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2—8,
10-16, and 18-20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4