Ex Parte Bellanca

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13804800 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
13/804,800 03/14/2013 John J Bellanca 5394. D00US1 1975
104326 7590 08/02/2017
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / Zimmer
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
APONTE, MIRAYDA ARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
SLW @ blackhillsip.com
USPTO@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN J. BELLANCA1
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 9-12, and 14 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Magnusson (US 2013/0244203 Al, pub. Sept. 19,
2013), Chalifoux (US 5,197,881, iss. Mar. 30, 1993), and Taxon
(US 3,803,532, iss. Apr. 9, 1974); and claims 5 and 13 as similarly
unpatentable over Magnusson, Chalifoux, Taxon, Danger
(US 2008/0160483 Al, pub. July 3, 2008), and Conte (US 2011/0306014 Al,
pub. Dec. 15, 2011). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Biomet 3i,
Incorporated. See Appeal Br. 1
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to attachment mechanisms for dental
implants. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A dental restoration system comprising:
an implant having a tip and an opposite cylindrical socket,
the socket having an interior surface having a sloped rim
surface and a plurality of helical grooves each with a vertical
and horizontal channel, the vertical channels each having one
end on the sloped rim surface and an opposite end terminating
in a proximal end of the corresponding horizontal channel,
wherein the horizontal channels each have a distal end and a
bottom surface between the two ends angled relative to the
horizontal plane;
a mating component having an interface section including a
collar having a plurality of radial tabs, the collar being attached
to a conical interface surface;
wherein each of the tabs slides in the vertical channel of a
corresponding one of the plurality of grooves when the mating
component is inserted into the implant and each of the tabs fits
in the bottom surface of the corresponding horizontal channel
of the groove to contact the distal end of the horizontal channel
and lock the mating component in place when the mating
component is rotated, and the conical interface contacts the
sloped rim surface of the cylindrical socket to create a seal
when the tabs are each fit into the corresponding horizontal
channel.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1—4, 6, 9—12, and 14
over Magnusson, Chalifoux, and Taxon
Appellant argues claims 1—4, 6, 9-12, and 14 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2016).
2
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
The Examiner finds that Magnusson discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for a bayonet style connector with helical
grooves. Non-Final Action 2—3. The Examiner relies on Chalifoux as
disclosing a dental implant connector with horizontal and vertical grooves.
Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Magnusson with Chalifoux’s vertical and horizontal groove connector. Id.
at 4—5. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have done this to provide a fast and easy way to install an abutment
on an implant in the proper rotational orientation. Id. at 5. The Examiner
relies on Taxon as teaching an angled bayonet connector groove. Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
Magnusson/Chalifoux connection to a Taxon angled bayonet connection. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to have a bayonet coupling mechanism that resists longitudinal
stresses tending to break the coupling. Id.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by first arguing that
Taxon is not properly combinable with Magnusson and Chalifoux. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant argues that Taxon discloses an electrical connector of a
different scale (size) and using different materials than a dental implant. Id.
at 6—7. Appellant argues that there is no reason to combine Taxon as it has a
“vastly different” purpose than that of a dental component. Id.
In response, the Examiner states:
It is understood that the claimed helical grooves is one of many
variation^] of a bayonet connection well known and used for
quick connect between tubes, valves, electrical, electronic and
3
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
pneumatic components, etc., and used in small components e.g.
electronics or medical connections, or in relative big elements
e.g. electrical tubes connections, fire arms, etc.; where it can be
made of different materials from plastic to any machined metal.
Therefore the claimed connection is used in a vast variety of
applications where a quick connection and the integrity of the
connection is needed.
Ans. 10.
In reply, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s Answer is insufficient
to rebut Appellant’s argument that a skilled artisan would not combine
Taxon’s connector to Magnusson and Chalifoux. Reply Br. 2—3.
We think the Examiner’s position is the better one. Moreover, it
appears to us that Appellant has misapprehended the Examiner’s position.
We view the Examiner’s citation to Taxon as but one example that
represents the broad application of bayonet connectors. Bayonet connectors
are well-known for use in a wide variety of product applications:
A bayonet mount (mainly as a method of mechanical
attachment, as for fitting a lens to a camera) or bayonet
connector (for electrical use) is a fastening mechanism
consisting of a cylindrical male side with one or more radial
pins, and a female receptor with matching L-shaped slot(s) and
with spring(s) to keep the two parts locked together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet_mount. In view of the mechanical
simplicity and breadth of use of the bayonet style connector, we find it
reasonable for the Examiner to rely on Taxon in this case. See In re Heldt,
433 F.2d 808 (CCPA 1970).2
2 “We find it not unreasonable in cases such as this, involving relatively
simple everyday-type mechanical concepts, to permit inquiry into other
areas where one of even limited technical skill would be aware that similar
problems axis.” Id. at 812.
4
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
With respect to Appellant’s “vastly different purpose” argument, we
note that it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that
disclosed in Appellant’s’ Specification in order to support the conclusion
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). This follows from the proposition that
“[a] reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its
primary purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007).
Appellant next argues that the Examiner errs in modifying Magnusson
and Chalifoux with Taxon because Chalifoux’s system is already adequate
to prevent unwanted rotation by means of key 45 and post 41. Appeal Br. 7.
This argument is not persuasive. A reason to modify a prior art reference
may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the
“interrelated teachings of multiple patents”; “any need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent”;
and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person
of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1328—29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418—21)). The fact that
the prior art may already perform adequately does not preclude a skilled
artisan from seeking to improve upon it. See Dystar Textilfarben GmBH &
Co, v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is
universal—and even common-sensical).
Next, Appellant argues that Taxon only discloses a single groove 17
and not multiple grooves as in Chalifoux and Magnusson. Appeal Br. 7.
This argument is unpersuasive. As conceded by Appellant, Chalifoux and
5
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
Magnusson already disclose a plurality of grooves. Thus, Taxon is only
relied on to show that angled grooves were known. In re Etter, 756
F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc) (The obviousness inquiry asks
whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of the
prior art as a whole).
Appellant also argues that modifying Magnusson as proposed by the
Examiner would change its principle of operation. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends that Magnusson’s indexing elements 60a to 60g are very long in
the axial direction to provide a rotation locking function. Id. at 7—8.
According to Appellant, if Magnussen were modified to include horizontal
channel portions, the length of the indexing elements 60a to 60g would need
to be substantially reduced to allow them to move in horizontal channels as
taught by Chalifoux or Taxon. Id. at 8. Appellant further argues:
Because there are so many of these indexing elements 60
and 61 it would be nearly impossible for each of these indexing
elements 60 and 61 to have a corresponding horizontal channel
as disclosed in Chalifoux without those horizontal channels
running into each other.
Id.
We are not persuaded that the proposed combination would change
Magnusson’s principle of operation. Magnusson teaches:
The present invention is based on the insight that when
connecting a dental component to a dental fixture, one or more
leading indexing elements may be used for guiding the dental
component into the correct rotational position relative to the
fixture before one or more subsequent trailing indexing
elements are engaged to form the final rotational lock.
Magnusson | 8. In addition, Magnusson teaches:
[A]t least one first indexing element is circumferentially
separated from any one of said one or more second indexing
6
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
elements. This means that said first indexing element is located
at a different position along the circumference of the fixture
engagement portion than any one of the second indexing
elements.
Id. 115. Magnusson may be practiced with as few as one first indexing
element. Id. Thus, Appellant’s “there are so many of these indexing
dements” argument is based on the faulty premise that Figures 1A-C and 2
of Magnusson disclose the only embodiments of the invention, when
Magnusson’s disclosure is actually much broader. Appellant’s argument
that Magnusson’s primary indexing elements would need to be substantially
reduced in length is similarly unpersuasive. As correctly pointed out by the
Examiner, if the connection is modified by Chalifoux, there would remain
elements to insure anti-rotation and alignment between the abutment and the
implant. Ans. 11. Thus, the principle of operation of connecting the two
primary components while maintaining alignment is preserved.
Appellant accuses the Examiner of failing to provide a rational
underpinning for the combination of Chalifoux and Magnusson, which is
augmented by a suggestion that the Examiner has engaged in impermissible
hindsight. Appeal Br. 9. In response, the Examiner states:
Regarding the combination using Chalifoux and Magnusson’s
vertical and horizontal channel allegedly lacks a “rational
underpinning”. However the reason of using said combination
relies on the substitution of one connection to another in a
dental implant. Applicant argues that said substitution won’t
simplify the installation but it will add an addition step, one
vertical and one horizontal. However it is understood that it
simplify its installation due by including the vertical and
horizontal movement steps will place the abutment down inside
the implant screw, and at the same time by the horizontal
movement would also place the abutment in the correct
rotational orientation. Therefore, having the bayonet locking
7
Appeal 2015-007637
Application 13/804,800
mechanism on an implant will provide a fast and easy way to
install an abutment on an implant, including the correct
rotational orientation between both.
Ans. 13. This is an adequate non-hindsight reason for making the proposed
combination. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (substitute one element for another
yielding a predictable result); In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (non-hindsight reason).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
claims 1—4, 6, 9-12, and 14.
Unpatentability of Claims 5 and 13
over Magnusson, Chalifoux, Taxon, Danger, and Conte
Claim 5 depends indirectly from independent claim 1, and claim 13
depends indirectly from independent claim 9. Claims App. Appellant does
not argue for the separate patentability of these claims apart from arguments
presented with respect to claim 1, which we have previously considered.
Appeal Br. 10. Thus, for the same reasons detailed above with respect to the
rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 15. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—6 and 9—14 is
affirmed.
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
8