Ex Parte Abboud

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14775257 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/775,257 09/11/2015
23389 7590 05/02/2019
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcus Abboud
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.
29644 6375
EXAMINER
APONTE, MIRA YDA ARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
Docket@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS ABBOUD
Appeal2018-008806
Application 14/775,257
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-008806
Application 14/775,257
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed "to an abutment and a dental treatment
methodology, which enables a professional to use autologous preexisting
tissue from tooth extraction for immediate or delayed implant." Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A dental treatment method comprising:
extracting a tooth of a patient;
preparing the extracted tooth to provide a root part having
periodontal connective tissues attached thereon;
attaching the root part to an abutment; and
connecting the abutment to a dental implant.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Parker
Krasner
Osorio
us 2,711,021
us 4,802,853
us 5,989,029
June 21, 1955
Feb. 7, 1989
Nov. 23, 1999
Gilheany, Peter A., et al., Apical Dentin Permeability and Microleakage
Associated with Root End Resection and Retrograde Filling, 20 Journal of
Endodontics 1-8 (1994).
1 The real party in interest is The Research Foundation for The State
University ofNew York. App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-008806
Application 14/775,257
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parker. Final Act. 2.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker and Osorio. Final Act. 5.
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker and Krasner. Final Act. 6.
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker and Gilheany. Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
All of the Examiner's rejections rely in some manner on the
Examiner's use of Parker in rejecting claim 1, the sole independent claim.
The Examiner admits that Parker fails to teach extracting a tooth "to provide
a root part [that] has the periodontal connective tissues attached thereon."
Final Act. 3. Despite this, the Examiner states that because Parker does not
describe the removal of such tissue that "it is obvious that said periodontal
tissue is kept attached on the root surface during the implantation
procedure." Id. The Examiner provides no evidence supporting the
supposition that periodontal tissue is kept attached.
The Examiner points, for the first time, in the Answer to Parker col. 2,
11. 41--48 as support for the "importance to keep the healthy conditions
around the implant in order for the bone to grow back towards the implant,"
but the passage cited is more ambiguous than the Examiner's
characterization. Ans. 3. Parker only discloses that "the bone structure
grows back around the implant substantially filling the area from which the
3
Appeal2018-008806
Application 14/775,257
infected bone structure has been removed." Parker col. 2, 11. 46-48. There
is no discussion of maintaining periodontal tissue to aid in the bone regrowth
and such bone regrowth could occur regardless of the presence of such
tissue.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not address the fact that the claims do
not merely recite maintaining periodontal tissue as a consequence of tooth
removal, but specifically recite a preparing step, which requires some act of
preparation after extraction, but prior to implantation. The Examiner asserts
that Krasner teaches preservation of tissue, but as Appellant points out,
Krasner merely teaches preserving tissue for test and observation and not for
reimplantation. The Examiner provides no explanation as to how the
preservation in Krasner would actually be viable for reimplantation of the
tooth. None of the secondary references cures this defect in Parker.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-3 and 5-11.
REVERSED
4