Ex Parte Kmiecz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 7, 2019

11823171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/823, 171 06/27/2007
7590 06/07/2019
Leopold Presser, Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser
Ste. 300
400 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Andre Kmiecz
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.
21296 1172
EXAMINER
EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2019 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 ANDRE KMIECZ, DANIEL GUNTER, and
MARCELLO MEMMOLO
Appeal2017-010909
Application 11/823, 171 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). On June 4, 2019, the Board held an oral hearing.
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the "invention relates ... to an improved bur
for dental implantology which is suitable to simplify drilling of an existing
1 According to Appellants, "STRAUMANN HOLDING AG" is the real
parts in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010909
Application 11/823, 171
bore." Spec. 1, 11. 2-3. Claim 1 is the sole the independent claim on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A bur for dental implantology, comprising:
a dental coupling,
a bur shank,
a bur neck comprising at least two helical grooves and at
least two bevels extending the length of the bur neck, and
a bur tip comprising at least two tip cutting edges, wherein
each tip cutting edge comprises a straight edge and a rounding,
wherein the straight edges of the at least two tip cutting
edges are a part of an imaginary cone with an obtuse angle, the
straight edges converging at a point that is the apex of the
imaginary cone, the axis of the imaginary cone running through
the axis of the bur, and the straight edges extending from the apex
of the imaginary cone to the rounding, and
wherein the rounding consists of a convex transition which
directly connects a respective straight edge to a respective bevel
of the bur neck, the bur neck having a diameter greater than the
bur shank.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2007/0099150 Al, pub. May 3, 2007)
(hereinafter "Muller") and Taylor (US 1,309,706, iss. July 15, 1919).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "a bur tip comprising at least two tip
cutting edges, wherein each tip cutting edge comprises a straight edge and a
rounding, ... the straight edges converging at a point." Appeal Br., Claims
App. ( emphasis added). Taylor's figures appear to show cutting edges that
2
Appeal2017-010909
Application 11/823, 171
meet at a line, rather than converge at a point. See, e.g., Taylor Fig. 3; see
Appeal Br. 3. Although the Examiner finds that Taylor discloses the
claimed "point" (Answer 3), the portion of Taylor the Examiner cites
describes that drills ground in accordance with the prior art, including US
Patent no. 270,366, rather than a drill ground in accordance with its
invention, has a "point at the center" (Taylor 1, 11. 44--5 6). Thus, the
Examiner does not show adequately that, if one of ordinary skill in the art
were to modify the bur tip of Muller's dental drill in accordance with the
teachings of Taylor, this modified bur tip would have the claimed "point."
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, or of claims 2-8, 10, and 11
that depend from claim 1 and which the Examiner rejects with the
independent claim.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-8,
10, and 11.
REVERSED
3