Ex Parte Gahlert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

13228642 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/228,642 09/09/2011
25944 7590 11/15/2018
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Gahlert
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.
164492 7934
EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESH P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GAHLERT
Appeal2017-002305
Application 13/228,642
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1 and 3-15. Appellant's representative presented oral arguments on
November 6, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-002305
Application 13/228,642
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A one-part dental implant comprising:
an anchoring part for anchoring within bone and having a
threaded section with a longitudinal axis; and
a mounting part having a frustoconical or conical shape
and lying in an extension of the longitudinal axis of the threaded
section of the anchoring part, the mounting part including a
flattened portion that has a smaller outer diameter than a
remainder of the one-part dental implant, wherein:
the mounting part is configured to receive an element
selected from the group consisting of a crown, a bridge, and a
prosthesis;
an upper end of the anchoring part transitions via an
enlarged conical section into the mounting part, the enlarged
conical section having a larger outer diameter than a remainder
of the one-part dental implant;
the anchoring part and the mounting part are integrally
made of a material based on zirconia;
the anchoring part at its outer surface is at least partially
roughened; and
the one-part dental implant facilitates osteogen[ e ]sis with
the bone.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Driskell
Mochida
Klardie
Reiger
Steinemann
us 4,547,157
us 5,642,996
us 5,782,918
us 6,165,925
US 2003/0176927 Al
2
Oct. 15, 1985
July 1, 1997
July 21, 1998
Dec. 26, 2000
Sept. 18, 2003
Appeal2017-002305
Application 13/228,642
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Driskell, Machida, and Rieger.
II. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Driskell, Machida, Rieger, and Klardie.
III. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Driskell, Machida, Rieger, and Steinemann.
DISCUSSION
Rejection!: Obviousness of Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-15
The Examiner determines that Driskell, Machida, and Reiger disclose
or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 2--4. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Driskell discloses a dental implant having an
anchoring part wherein "an upper end of the anchoring part transitions via an
enlarged conical section which has a larger outer diameter than remainder of
the implant." Id. at 3.
Appellant contends that "the root structure 21 of Driskell does not
comprise an anchoring part that transitions at its upper end into a mounting
part via an enlarged conical section having a larger outer diameter than a
remainder of the implant, as recited by claim 1." Appeal Br. 12. In support
of this contention, Appellant argues that in Driskell "the undercut and the
internally radiused surface 33 through which the root structure 21 of Driskell
transitions from the insertion portion 32 into the top tapered portion 29 does
not have a larger outer diameter than the remainder of the root structure 21
or the final two-part implant." Id.
3
Appeal2017-002305
Application 13/228,642
As shown in Driskell's Figure 3, reproduced below1, Driskell's root
structure transitions at its upper end from insertion (anchoring) portion 32
via a reduced diameter portion (at 33), rather than an enlarged conical
section. Thus, Appellant is correct and the Examiner's finding is in error.
30
34
lr.--1:':IE:' __ .~ Fig. 3
3A
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 5-10 and 13-15, which depend therefrom
1Driskell's Figure 3 "is a fragmentary, front elevation view of a root
structure [ of a dental implant] comprising a portion of and according to a
typical embodiment of the present invention." Driskell, col. 4, 11. 5-7.
4
Appeal2017-002305
Application 13/228,642
Rejections II and III: Obviousness of Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12
Rejections II and III rely on the same erroneous finding as Rejection I.
See Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner's use of the Klardie and Steinemann
disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Driskell discussed supra. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 3,
4, 11, and 12, for the same reason we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-15 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5