Block, Douglas

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

14721310 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

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.
14/721,310 05/26/2015 Douglas Block Block - 100 7201
97110 7590 12/19/2019
Raymond Van Dyke
Van Dyke Law
Washington Square, P.O. Box 65302
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20035
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, SHANNEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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):
ray@rayvandyke.com
vandyke@acm.org
vandykelaw@aol.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS BLOCK

Appeal 2018-0047081
Application 14/721,310
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
The Appellant3 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–12
and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held on December 4, 2019.
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
3 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (“the
inventor”). “Dr. Douglas Block is the sole inventor, and real party in
interest.” (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-004708
Application 14/721,310

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellant, “[t]he present invention is directed to
improvements in dentistry, dental care and elder and other care involving the
teeth and gums.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A device for removing dental appliances from a patient
mouth comprising:
a handle;
a shaft, said shaft being affixed to said handle at one end
thereof;
a hook, said hook being affixed at one end to a second
end of said shaft,
wherein said hook is affixed to said shaft, and
wherein said hook has a tip portion at an angle of about
30–110 degrees from a horizontal line,
wherein said horizontal line is perpendicular to the axis
of said shaft,
whereby said device is adapted for a user employing said
device to engage a dental appliance in said patient mouth, and
said device is adapted to remove said dental appliance
therefrom.

References
Pankratz US 3,686,756 August 29, 1972
Lukase US 5,378,151 January 3, 1995
Rahman US 6,361,317 B1 March 26, 2002
Kangasniemi US 6,997, 709 B2 February 14, 2006
Moritz US 2010/028162 A1 November 11, 2010
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pankratz. (Final Action 2.)
Appeal 2018-004708
Application 14/721,310

3
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pankratz and Lukase. (Final Action 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pankratz and Rahman. (Final Action 5.)
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pankratz, Lukase, and Moritz. (Final Action 6.)
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pankratz and Kangasniemi. (Final Action 6.)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pankratz, Lukase, and Kangasniemi. (Final Action 7.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 sets forth “[a] device for removing dental
appliances from a patient mouth” which comprises “a hook” having “a tip
portion at an angle of about 30–110 degrees from a horizontal line.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner concludes that the dental device set forth in
independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Pankratz. (See Final
Action 2.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Pankratz discloses a dental
device having a hook, but does not “explicitly disclose the hook having a tip
portion at an angle of about 30–110 degrees.” (Id.) However, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Pankratz so that its
hook had a tip portion at the claimed angle, “for the purpose of providing
easy access to the dental appliance, while preventing damage to the surface
of the prosthetic.” (Id. at 3.)
Appeal 2018-004708
Application 14/721,310

4
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
is not sufficiently supported by the record. (See Appeal Br. 11–19.) The
Appellant’s position is persuasive.
According to the Appellant, Pankratz discloses a dental device that
“provide[s] hammering power in both the insertion and the extraction of
cemented dental crowns.” (Id. at 16.) The Appellant contends that the
angular profile of the tip portion of Pankratz’s hook is “due to the insertion
hammering needs.” (Id. at 17.) In other words, the Appellant contends that
Pankratz does not show or suggest that the angle of its hook’s tip portion
somehow correlates with the Examiner’s articulated reason for the proposed
modification. (See id at. 16–19.)
Pankratz describes its disclosed tool as “a conventional hammer
member having a hooked end 18,” which “has a surface 19 usable to
hammer a crown or similar member into place.” (Pankratz, col. 2,
ll. 15–19.) Pankratz does indicate that “the end of hook 18” is “used to
extract and remove crowns or similar inserts.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 19–20.) But
Pankratz does not indicate how the tip angle of this hook affects the
operation of its dental device for any purpose, much less the purposes stated
by the Examiner (i.e., “providing easy access to the dental appliance” and
“preventing damage to the surface of the prosthetic”).
The Examiner does not address the Appellant’s contentions regarding
the teachings of Pankratz. (See Answer 8–9.) Rather, the Examiner
maintains that “[m]odification of the disclosed angle of Pankratz would be
obvious” based upon In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). (Answer 9.)
The Examiner is correct that, “where the general conditions of a claim are
Appeal 2018-004708
Application 14/721,310

5
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.)
However, the parameter purportedly being optimized (i.e., the angle of the
hook’s tip portion) must first be recognized as “a result-effective variable.”
(In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977).) Here, the record contains
no discussion as to why the angle of the hook’s tip portion would be
recognized as a result-effect variable in Pankratz’s dental device.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pankratz.
The rest of the claims on appeal likewise require “a hook” having “a
tip portion at an angle of about 30–110 degrees from a horizontal line,” and
their rejections likewise rely upon Pankratz to show or suggest this
limitation. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2–12 and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-004708
Application 14/721,310

6
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.   References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15
§ 103  Pankratz 1, 3, 5–7, 9,
11, 12, 14,
15
8, 16, 17 § 103  Pankratz,
Lukase
8, 16, 17
2, 4, 10 § 103 Pankratz
Rahman
2, 4, 10
18 § 103 Pankratz
Lukase
Moritz
18
19, 21 § 103 Pankratz
Kangasniemi
19, 21
20 § 103 Pankratz
Lukase
Kangasniemi
20
Overall
Outcome
1–12,
14–21

REVERSED