Ex Parte GoldenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713571784 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/571,784 08/10/2012 Richard Golden GOL-10404/16 8019 25006 7590 03/01/2017 DTNSMORF fr SHOHT T T P EXAMINER 900 Wilshire Drive MAI, HAO D Suite 300 TROY, MI 48084 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): docket@patlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD GOLDEN Appeal 2015-003308 Application 13/571,784 Technology Center 3700 Before: JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2—5 and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-003308 Application 13/571,784 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to forceps for removing teeth. Spec. 11. Claim 10, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim. 10. A dental pliers appliance for loosening a tooth from a patient’s gum line and bone through the application of a rotating motion, said appliance comprising: first and second handles pivotally connected at intermediate locations, each of said handles having a user grasping portion; said first handle terminating forward of said pivotal connection in a beak extending in an arcuate fashion along its extending length and defining an inner curved surface terminating in an end most located narrowed blade edge extending an “x” dimension relative to a centerline axis extending through said arcuate beak; said second handle terminating in a pad support opposing said beak and extending blade edge, a contoured surface of said pad support exhibiting a crosswise extending dimension “y” extending along a longest dimension associated with said pad support, said “y” dimension being larger than said “x” dimension; and said beak and extending blade edge adapted to engage a surface of the tooth in combination with said pad support adapted to being applied along a surface of the patient’s gum line below that same tooth, following which rotation of said appliance exerting an end most portion of said inner curved surface of said beak against the tooth in order to separate the tooth and its roots from the underlying bone. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Oye US 4,559,853 Dec. 24, 1985 2 Appeal 2015-003308 Application 13/571,784 REJECTION Claims 2—5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Oye. OPINION The Examiner finds that Oye discloses all the features recited in claim 1, and, specifically, that hammer pad 26’ corresponds to the required narrowed blade edge. Final Act. 2. Appellant asserts that hammer pad 26’ is not arranged at a terminating edge of an arcuate beak and is not a blade edge. Br. 5—6. In response, the Examiner provides annotated versions of Figures 4 and 5 of Oye, identifying the bottom of hammer pad 26’ as a narrowed blade edge and states: As allowed by broadest reasonable interpretation, the apex or tip of the convex semicircular surface 26’ (see above annotated drawing) is equivalent to the claimed “narrowed blade edge”. That is, the convex surface 26’ converges, narrows, and terminates at the apex/tip of said convex surface 26’, thereby forming a narrowed blade edge as claimed. Note that the claim(s) does not require the claimed “narrowed blade edge” to be sharp. Ans. 5. We reproduce Figures 4 and 5 of Oye below. 3 Appeal 2015-003308 Application 13/571,784 Figure 4 of Oye depicts “a jaw end view of a bass size fish lower lip gripper tool,” including hammer pad 26’, and Figure 5 depicts a side elevation view of the same tool. Oye, 1:67—2:2. Although the term “blade edge” is not present in the Detailed Description of Appellant’s Specification (see Spec. Tflf 23—50), the Detailed Description discusses a “knife edge” (see, e.g., Spec. 30—31), and we understand the terms knife edge and blade edge, as used by Appellant, to refer to the same structure. Such structure is depicted, for example, in Figure 3 at the end of beak 38 and appears to be a sharp edge. We also understand that, as pointed out by the Examiner, the sharpness of the required blade edge is not defined in claim 1. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “narrowed blade edge” does not include a bulbous structure such as the hammer pad 26’ in Oye. In other words, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term narrowed blade edge appears to give no limiting effect to the word “blade.” Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that hammer pad 26’ of Oye does not qualify as a narrowed blade edge as recited in claim 1, and we reverse the rejection of claims 2—5 and 10 as anticipated by Oye. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—5 and 10 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation