Ex Parte Haselhuhn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2012

11579707 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

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.
11/579,707 01/17/2007 Klaus Haselhuhn HASELHUHN ET AL 1
PCT
5474
25889 7590 12/10/2012
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2012 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 KLAUS HASELHUHN, JAN-DIRK REIMERS, and
HUBERTUS SPIEKERMANN
__________

Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims related to
producing a dental implant. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states that the process of making a dental implant to
replace a lost tooth (Spec. 1) involves introducing an implant body into the
jaw bone (id. at 2), after which an impression post is screwed into the
App
App

impl
or pr
takin
body
pene
impr
Figu
The
adap
impr
wall
discl
(id. a
read

eal 2012-0
lication 11
ant body a
osthesis (i
g an impr
is situated
trated by a
ession tray
Figure 1
re 1 shows
Specificat
ted to a jaw
ession bod
thickness
oses that t
t 9).
Claims 3
s as follow
8. A com
00237
/579,707
nd an imp
d.). The S
ession of a
” (id. at 1
n impress
is placed
of the Spe
“an impr
ion disclos
or jaw p
y 2 there
constructe
he impress
, 5, 8 and
s:
bination
ression is
pecificatio
t least one
). The “tr
ion post in
onto the j
cification
ession tray
es that the
art.… At t
are portion
d as a film
ion post c
9 are on a
comprisin
2
taken to su
n disclose
jaw part,
ay body ha
serted into
aw part” (i
is shown b
according
“concave
he left-han
s of the w
7 or mem
an penetra
ppeal. Cla
g:
bsequentl
s an impre
in which a
s a wall w
the impla
d. at 6).
elow:
to the inv
impressio
d and righ
all 6, 6' wi
brane” (id
te the port
im 8 is rep
y produce
ssion tray
t least one
hich can b
nt body if

ention” (i
n body 2 …
t-hand sid
th a partic
.). The Sp
ions 6, 6' o
resentativ
the crown
“for
implant
e
the
d. at 8).
is
es of the
ularly thin
ecification
f the wall
e and

Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707

3
(a) an impression tray comprising a concave tray body for taking a
negative impression of at least one jaw part in a mouth of a patient;
(b) an impression post; and
(c) at least one implant body that is adapted to be situated in the at
least one jaw part, said at least one implant body comprising a receiving
aperture for insertion of the impression post;
wherein the tray body is fillable with a free-flowing hardenable
impression material to produce a mold for a model of the at least one jaw
part; and
wherein the tray body comprises a wall having at least one penetrable
portion for penetration by the impression post inserted in the at least one
implant body when the tray body is placed onto the at least one jaw part; and
wherein the at least one penetrable portion of the wall is a membrane,
a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric or a film.

Independent claim 9 is directed to a dental set and like claim 8
requires an implant body, an impression post, and an impression tray that
“comprises a wall having at least one penetrable portion.” Claim 9 also
requires that the “impression post comprises at least one of a taper, a cutting
edge, a removable cap with a taper, and a removable cap with a cutting
edge.”
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious in view of Brånemark1 and Presswood.2 The Examiner
has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious in view of
Brånemark, Presswood and Georgakis.3 Since the same issue is dispositive
for both rejections we will consider them together.

1 Brånemark, US 4,708,654, Nov. 24, 1987.
2 Presswood, US 5,403,185, Apr. 4, 1995.
3 Georgakis et al., US 6,379,147 B1, Apr. 30, 2002.
Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707

4
The Examiner finds that Brånemark discloses all of the elements of
the claimed combination, including an impression tray that “comprises a
wall 17 having … penetrable portion 18 for penetration by the impression
post,” except that it does not disclose that the wall portion opening
comprises “a membrane, a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric or a film” or
that the impression post comprises a taper or cutting edge (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner finds that Presswood discloses “a tray comprising a
penetrable portion that is a membrane or a film” (id.) and an “impression
post 26 [that] further includes a taper capable of penetration of the
impression material and the … penetrable portion of the [tray] wall” (id.).
The Examiner concludes that it “would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art … to modify the penetration portion taught by
Brånemark with a film covering it [as] taught by Presswood in order to
prevent the impression material from leaking through the opening before it is
hardened” (id. at 5-6).
Appellants argue that Brånemark does not “disclose or suggest that
the opening 18 in his impression tray … is somehow inadequate or has
disadvantages that require modification, for example, by receiving a liner or
membrane as a covering” (Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants argue that Presswood
discloses creating a positive dental model by filling a negative form “with
the comparatively watery substance, dental plaster” (id. at 2), but
Brånemark’s negative forms are “prepared using a comparatively viscous
polymeric material not able to easily flow through holes” (id.). Appellants
argue that since Brånemark “does not have the problem of an easily-flowing
impression material and is unconcerned with the polymeric material
App
App

escap
mod
(App

expl
tray
for u
“dist
and g
Brån
prov
15a,
(id. a
Figu
Brån
impr
alveo
eal 2012-0
lication 11
ing throu
ify Brånem
eal Br. 13
We agre
ained how
of claim 8
se in manu
ance mean
uide pins
emark dis
ided with
15b filled
t col. 3, ll
re 3 shows
emark dis
ession tray
lar ridge.
00237
/579,707
gh the hole
ark in vie
).
e with App
the cited r
. Brånema
facture of
s 22” are
are attach
closes that
. . . axially
with softe
. 18-21). F
“an empt
closes that
s by the f
This way
s in the tr
w of Press
ellants th
eferences
rk disclos
a denture
implanted
ed to the d
“[w]hen a
protrudin
ned impre
igure 3 of
y upper jaw
the “impr
act that an
the guide p
5
ay,” it wou
wood as s
at the Exam
would hav
es a metho
(Brånema
into the ja
istance me
ll the dista
g guide pin
ssion mate
Brånemar
dental tr
ession tray
opening 1
ins 19 wi
ld not hav
uggested b
iner has
e made ob
d of maki
rk, col. 2,
wbone (id
ans (id. at
nce mean
s 19, a de
rial 21 is a
k is show
ay” (id. at
differs …
8 is provid
ll protrude
e been ob
y the Exa
not adequa
vious the
ng a mode
ll. 34-36)
. at col. 2,
col. 2, ll.
s 22 have
ntal impre
pplied ov
n below:

col. 2, ll.
from con
ed … ove
from the b
vious to
miner
tely
impression
l of a jaw
in which
ll. 61-62)
63-65).
been
ssion tray
er the jaw”
15-16).
ventional
r the
ack side

Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707

6
of the impression tray 15a, 15b when the tray is applied to a jaw” (id. at col.
3, ll. 25-30).
Presswood discloses that, in preparing false teeth, “the dentist will
normally prepare a negative impression of the affected tooth … by filling a
tray with polymer material and having the patient sink his teeth into the
polymer material to create a plurality of depressions…. To form a tooth
model, the quantity of casting stone, often referred to as die stone, is poured
into the negative impression.” (Presswood, col. 1, ll. 17-32.)
Presswood discloses an “apparatus for positioning pin type supports
within a plaster dental model” (Presswood, col. 1, ll. 10-14). Presswood
discloses that “a negative impression 18 … is secured in the lower tray 12b
[of the apparatus] by placing … dental plaster into the negative impression
of the opposing teeth and also pouring … dental plaster 23 into the lower
tray” (id. at col. 3, ll. 51-65). Presswood discloses that “[b]ecause the dental
plaster is initially in a liquified state is it [sic] necessary to provide means to
prevent the dental plaster from leaking through the apertures 16 [of the
trays].… [T]his is accomplished by placing a liner … adjacent the apertures
in each of the trays.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 1-7.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained why one of skill in the art would have modified the impression
tray of Brånemark to cover the opening 18 in its dental tray with a
membrane, a fabric, or a film, as required in claim 8. Brånemark discloses
that the impression tray is filled with softened impression material to form
the negative impression, but the Examiner has not pointed to anything in
Brånemark to suggest that leakage of the softened impression material from
Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707

7
the impression tray is a problem or to suggest any other reason for covering
the opening.
Presswood discloses the use of a film covering in an apparatus to
prevent liquefied dental plaster from leaking, but Presswood distinguishes
between the “polymer material” used to make a negative impression, as in
Brånemark, and the die stone or plaster (see id. at col. 1, ll. 31-32, 34-35)
that is poured into the impression to form the tooth model. The Examiner
has not provided evidence or technical reasoning to show that the pourable
dental plaster has properties similar to those of softened impression material.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that either Brånemark or Presswood
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
the opening of the Brånemark impression tray.
The Examiner points to a statement in the Specification that she
interprets as disclosing that “the problem of the impression material leaking
form [sic] the tray is a known problem in the art that can be solved by the
addition of a penetrable wall portion” (Answer 7). However, we agree with
Appellants (Reply Br. 4-5) that the cited passage does not acknowledge a
known problem in the art but “merely identifies a supplementary advantage
achieved with Appellants’ invention” (Reply Br. 5).
Thus, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 8 and dependent
claim 5. Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 8 in requiring that the
implant tray body comprises a penetrable wall portion, and also requires an
“impression post [that] comprises at least one of a taper, a cutting edge,” etc.
The Examiner relies on the same reasoning discussed above in concluding
that cited references would have made obvious an impression post with a
Appeal 2012-000237
Application 11/579,707

8
taper or cutting edge. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of independent
claim 9.
The Examiner has also rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being obvious in view of Brånemark, Presswood and Georgakis. Claim 3
depends from claim 8 and further requires that “at least one penetrable
portion of the wall is a membrane and the membrane is self-adhesive.”
Because the Examiner’s rejection relies on Brånemark and Presswood as
discussed above, we also reverse the rejection of claim 3.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 3, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a).

REVERSED

lp