Sascha Schneider

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

14045324 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
14/045,324 10/03/2013 Sascha Schneider 01873.200053.1 3895
5514 7590 09/30/2020
Venable LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
EXAMINER
MORAN, EDWARD JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SASCHA SCHNEIDER
Appeal 2019-0063921
Application 14/045,324
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–11, 13, 15–24, and 26–28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant presented oral arguments on September 1, 2020.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Dentsply Sirona Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dental system that includes a “final
abutment” and a “healing abutment” (gingiva former) used to shape a
patient’s gingiva in anticipation of installation of the final abutment. Spec.
¶ 1.
Claim 28, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
28. A dental system, comprising:
a gingiva former that includes a gingiva former edge that
divides the gingiva former into a top portion and a bottom
portion, with the top portion including a peripheral surface that
tapers towards a longitudinal axis of the gingiva former, with the
taper of the peripheral surface starting at the gingiva former
edge, and with the bottom portion including a peripheral surface
that decreases in distance from the longitudinal axis starting at
the gingiva former edge,
wherein the bottom portion of the gingiva former includes
a connecting geometry; and
a final abutment that includes a final abutment edge and a
region below the final abutment edge, wherein a geometry of the
final abutment edge corresponds to a geometry of the gingiva
former edge, and wherein a geometry of the region below the
final abutment edge corresponds to a geometry of the bottom
portion of the gingiva former.
Appeal Br. vi (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Daftary US 5,073,111 Dec. 17, 1991
Morgan US 5,499,918 Mar. 19, 1996
Sims US 2005/0084821 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Korrodi US 2008/0254412 A1 Oct. 16, 2008

REJECTIONS3
I. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Daftary.
II. Claims 13, 21, 22, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Daftary and Sims.
III. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Daftary, Sims, and Morgan.
IV. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Daftary, Sims, and Korrodi.
V. Claims 9, 10, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Daftary, Morgan, and Sims.
VI. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Daftary, Morgan, Sims, and Korrodi.

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 9–11, 13, 15–24, and 26–28
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
4
OPINION
Rejection I–Daftary
Claim 28
The Examiner finds that Daftary discloses all of the elements recited
in claim 28, and the Examiner provides an annotated version of a portion of
Figure 1 of Daftary (hereinafter, “Annotated Figure 1”) summarizing the
Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 3–4. We reproduce Annotated Figure 1
below.

Annotated Figure 1 is a partial cross-section of Daftary’s screw head
segment 46 with letters A–I identifying various structures upon which the
Examiner relies to meet the requirements of claim 28. See Final Act. 3–4;
Daftary 3:3–6, 4:16–18. The Examiner finds section “C” in Annotated
Figure 1 qualifies as the gingiva former edge recited in claim 28. Final Act.
3–4.
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
5
Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
“gingiva former edge” as reading on section “C” in Annotated Figure 1 is
not reasonable, and, therefore, the Examiner erred in finding that Daftary
discloses a gingiva former edge as recited in claim 28. See Appeal Br. 12–
16. Specifically, Appellant contends, “the [S]pecification and drawings of
the subject application show that a gingiva former ‘edge’ is akin to a line on
the gingiva former, not an entire surface area of the gingiva former as in the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term.” Id. at 13. Appellant points to
paragraph 29 of the Specification, Figure 1, and a dictionary definition in
support of this claim interpretation. Id. at 13–15.
In response, the Examiner states, “limitations from the [S]pecification
cannot be read into the claims for claim interpretation. Further, the cited
section makes no mention of any thickness of the argued line, and even still,
states that it only ‘corresponds’ to[] it, leaving breadth in the explanation and
interpretation of the term.” Ans. 4. As for whether a dictionary supports
Appellant’s proposed interpretation of the term “edge” in claim 28, the
Examiner finds, “Merriam Webster states broader reasonable definitions of
the term such as ‘the narrow part adjacent to a border’ (as in the edge of a
deck) or ‘the point near the beginning or the end’, both of which encompass
the interpretation relied on by the Examiner.” Id. at 5. The Examiner
determines that both definitions allow section “C” in Annotated Figure 1 to
“correspond precisely” to the gingival line. Id.; see also Spec. ¶ 29 (“[T]he
edge of the healing abutment corresponds precisely to the gingival line
formed by the gum on the customized final implant replacement or it is at a
distance from this gingival line such that the gum overlaps the edge of the
healing abutment.”).
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
6
In reply, Appellant argues that Figure 1 demonstrates that the gingiva
former edge recited in claim 28 has the thickness of a line, not of an area
such as section “C” in Annotated Figure 1. Reply Br. 2. Appellant also
reiterates that paragraph 29 of the Specification supports a narrower
interpretation of “gingiva former edge” than the one used in the rejection of
claim 28, stating, “[t]he Examiner’s focus on the word ‘corresponds’ [in
paragraph 29 of the Specification] ignores the word ‘precisely’ that directly
modifies the word in the cited passage of the specification.” Id.
Appellant contends that section “C” in Annotated Figure 1 is not
“narrow,” as required by the first of the Examiner’s stated dictionary
definitions, and, in any event, Appellant’s Specification uses the terms
“edge,” “portion,” and “surface” separately, and, therefore, these terms are
not equivalents. Id. at 3. As for the second of the Examiner’s stated
dictionary definitions, Appellant argues the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “gingiva former edge,” in light of the
Specification, is not merely a “point.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the rejection of claim 28 relies on an
unreasonably broad definition of the term “gingiva former edge.” Paragraph
29 of the Specification describes the edge of the healing abutment as
“correspond[ing] precisely to the gingival line.” Although not dispositive,
this language implies that the edge is itself similar to a line. We use the term
“line” here in the sense that the edge is thin in the same way a borderline is,
not in the sense that the line is the shortest distance between two points. In
this regard, Appellant’s Figure 2 depicts gingival line 16 as a borderline of
gingiva 12. Moreover, in accordance with Appellant’s proposed
interpretation, claim 28 uses the terms “edge,” “portion,” and “surface” to
identify different structures, implying that these terms have different
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
7
meanings. In contrast, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “gingiva
former edge” in claim 28 as reading on section “C” in Annotated Figure 1
amounts to interpreting the words “edge,” “portion,” and “surface” as
equivalents. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 28, in
light of the Specification, section “C” in Annotated Figure 1 does not qualify
as the recited gingiva former edge. Accordingly, Appellant has apprised us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 as anticipated by Daftary,
and we do not sustain this rejection.

Rejections II–VI
(Daftary in combination with one or more of Sims, Morgan, and Korrodi)
Claims 9–11, 13, 15–24, 26, and 27
Independent claims 9 and 13 both recite a gingiva former edge, along
with similar requirements as to its relative location on a gingiva former, and
each of claims 10, 11, 15–24, 26, and 27 depends from one of claims 9 and
13. Appeal Br. i–vi (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same
interpretation of the term “gingiva former edge” and the same findings of
fact with respect to section “C” in Annotated Figure 1 to reject claims 9–11,
13, 15–24, 26, and 27. See Final Act. 5–12. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejection II–
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Appeal 2019-006392
Application 14/045,324
8

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
28 102(b) Daftary  28
13, 21, 22,
24, 27
103(a) Daftary, Sims  13, 21, 22,
24, 27
22, 23 103(a) Daftary, Sims, Morgan 22, 23
26 103(a) Daftary, Sims, Korrodi 26
9, 10, 15–20 103(a) Daftary, Morgan, Sims 9, 10, 15–
20
11 103(a) Daftary, Morgan, Sims,
Korrodi
11

Overall
Outcome
9–11, 13,
15–24, 26–
28

REVERSED