Ex Parte WANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2018

14416566 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/416,566 01/22/2015
105857 7590 12/05/2018
NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404
Fairfax, VA 22030
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JeWonWANG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PK002590830 9302
EXAMINER
EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2018 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@nkllaw.com
skim@nkllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JE WON WANG
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
Technology Center 3700
Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC B. GRIMES and
DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
STATEMENT OF CASE
The following claim is representative.
1. An integral-type implant comprising:
an intraosseous implant part provided integrally with a lower
portion of the integral-type implant and configured to be buried into
an alveolar bone;
a gum penetration part provided integrally with an upper portion
of the intraosseous implant part and configured to be buried into a gum
to cover the alveolar bone;
a prosthetic appliance attachment part provided integrally with
an upper portion of the gum penetration part;
a final prosthetic appliance attached to the prosthetic appliance
attachment part; and
a prosthetic appliance attachment central hole extending from an
upper end surface of the prosthetic appliance attachment part toward
the intraosseous implant part such that the final prosthetic appliance is
attached to an inner surface of the prosthetic appliance attachment
central hole,
wherein the prosthetic appliance attachment central hole has a
depth in a range of 1.5 mm to 15 mm, and a linear distance between an
upper edge of the prosthetic appliance attachment central hole and an
outer edge of an upper circumferential surface of the prosthetic
appliance attachment part is in a range of 0.2 mm to 3 mm, and
wherein the prosthetic appliance attachment part includes an
outer circumferential surface having a vertical cross-sectional concave
shaped portion and a vertical cross-sectional convex shaped portion
continuously connected with the concave shaped portion configured to
widen an attachment contact area between the prosthetic appliance part
and the final prosthetic appliance.
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Strong (US 2014/0093842 Al, published Apr. 3, 2014) in
view of Schroering (US 2009/0233256 Al, published Sept. 17, 2009).
2
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Examiner's findings of fact are set forth in the Final Action at
pages 2---6. The following facts are highlighted.
1. Fig. 2 of the Specification is reproduced below.
Fig. 2 of the Specification shows tooth implant intraosseous part 100,
central hole 500, upper portion of gum penetration part 310, and prosthetic
attachment part 330. Spec. 10-11.
2. Fig. 5 of Strong is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
Fig. 5 shows Strong implant 10, threaded anchor portion 12,
platform switching collar section 12. Platform switching collar
includes cylindrical collar portion 20, and mouth portion 22.
3. In Strong, the collar 20 has a height between about 1.1 and 2.0
times the height of the mouth portion 22. ,r 43.
4. In Strong, the ordered micro-geometric repetitive surface
pattern zone 44 ( see Fig. 15 A, which corresponds to element 14 in
Fig. 5) is between about 1.5 and 2.5 mm in height. ,r 45. The bone
and soft gum tissue will grow into and grip the micro geometric
surface pattern zone on the collar section 14. ,r 42.
5. Fig. 14 C of Strong is reproduced below.
Fig. 14C of Strong shows collar 20 receives or attaches to abutment
30. ,r,r 52, 57.
4
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
6. Fig. 2 of Schroering is reproduced below.
Fig. 2 of Schroering shows the abutment section 20 is adjacent to the
implant section 30 such that the stem 22 abuts the neck 12. In an
exemplary embodiment, the stem 22 defines a diameter at the stem's
widest point wherein the stem diameter is smaller than either the
diameter of the collar 24 or the diameter of the neck 12. When the
dental device 10 is properly inserted into the jaw bone 90, the stem 22
will lie essentially at the upper edge of the bone and within a
connective tissue layer 92. Schroering ,r 22.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In making our determination, we apply the preponderance of the
evidence standard. See, e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office).
5
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007).
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the
prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product. ... Whether the rejection is
based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie
obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the
burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s
inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added.)
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner finds that Strong teaches each element claimed except
that Strong does not specifically teach the grooves comprise a concave and
convex cross section being continuously connected. Final Act. 3--4.
Schroering is relied on by the Examiner as teaching, "a vertical cross
sectional concaves shaped portion and a vertical cross sectional convex
shaped portion continuously connected with the concave shaped portion (see
figs. 4a, 5b )." Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that, "[I]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filling date of the invention to modify the grooves taught by Strong with the
concave and convex groove pattern taught by Schroering as a matter of
obvious design choice since Schroering teaches several alternative groove
patterns having different designs." Final Act. 4.
6
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
Appellant contends that
[T]he abutment section 20 of FIG. 2 of Schroering corresponds
to the claimed prosthetic appliance attachment part 330. The
abutment section 20 is engaged with the dental device in
Schroering like the claimed prosthetic appliance attachment
part 330 being engaged with the final prosthetic appliance 700
in the claimed invention. However, as shown in FIG. 2 of
Schroering, the abutment section 20 is a plane outer surface
which does not include an outer circuniferential swface having
a vertical cross-sectional concave shaped portion and a
vertical cross-sectional convex shaped portion continuously
connected with the concave shaped portion configured to widen
an attachment contact area between the prosthetic appliance
part and the final prosthetic appliance.
App. Br. 8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not argue the individual claims separately, therefore
we select claim 1 as representative claim for purposes of this decision. We
agree with the Examiner's fact finding, statement of the rejection and
responses to Appellant's arguments as set forth in the Answer. We find that
the Examiner has provided evidence to support a prima facie case of
obviousness. We provide the following additional comment to the
Examiner's argument set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer.
The Appellant argues that Schroering does not teach the appliance
attachment part wherein the grooves are configured to "widen an attachment
contact area between the prosthetic appliance apart and the final prosthetic
appliance." App. Br. 8. The Examiner generally argues that, "the appellant
seems to be arguing that the convex/ concave surface is the attachment
contact area, however, it is noted that the appellant has not claimed the
7
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
concave/convex surface is the attachment area, only that it is configured to
widen an attachment contact area between the prosthetic appliance part and
the final appliance." Ans. 3.
Cylindrical collar 20 with mouth 22 of Strong is a contact area for the
abutment. FF 5. When Strong is modified to have the concave and convex
groove pattern taught by Schroering it would have substantially the same
structure as the structure Appellant contends widens t an attachment contact
area between the prosthetic appliance part and the final appliance. FF 3-5;
compare to Spec. Fig. 9B (which Appellants contend "shows ... an outer
circumferential surface ... configured to widen an attachment contact area"
(App. Br. 7)). "[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the
burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). A claimed device is not rendered patentable by recitation of
properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in the
prior art. Id. at 709. Appellant has not shown that the cylindrical collar 20
with mouth portion 22 of Strong, with a height reading on the claimed
height, does not function to widen an attachment contact area between the
prosthetic appliance part and the final appliance. FF 3, 4.
Appellant argues that the mouth portion of the Strong implant does
not include grooves. App. Br. 10. However, the Examiner relies on
Schroering for this feature, not Strong. FF 6. The grooves of Schroering are
"designed to minimize tissue loss and to reduce the risk of bacterial infection
in the implant site." ,r 2. Appellant errs in attacking the references
individually, as the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The references
8
Appeal2017-008620
Application 14/416,566
cannot be read in isolation, but must be read for what they teach in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See, id. We agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the grooves
taught by Strong with the concave and convex groove pattern taught by
Schroering, in order to minimize tissue loss and to reduce the risk of
bacterial infection in the implant site. Schroering ,r 2.
The obviousness rejection is affirmed for the reasons of record.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The cited references support the Examiner's obviousness rejection,
which is affirmed for the reasons of record. All pending, rejected claims
fall.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9