Ex Parte Laux

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2012

11711186 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 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.
11/711,186 02/26/2007 Thomas Laux HG 48 5534
7590 08/16/2012
KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES
PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE
MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668
EXAMINER
ROSEN, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte THOMAS LAUX
__________

Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and ERIC GRIMES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a carrier
implant for a tooth prosthesis. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses “a carrier for implantation into the jaw of a
patient for supporting a tooth prosthesis” (Spec. 1:2-4). Figure 1 of the
Specification is shown below:
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

2

Figure 1 shows “a carrier post 1 with a lower root part 11 for implantation
into the jaw of a patient and an upper post part 12.… On top of the post part
12 …, a carrier cover 2 is arranged which serves as carrier element for a tooth
crown or a tooth prosthesis” (id. at 4:29 to 5:6). The Specification discloses
that “[b]efore the carrier cover 2 is placed onto the carrier post 1, … spiral
compression spring 3 is inserted into the carrier cover 2 and an amount of
liquid silicon [sic, silicone?] or another suitable elastomer material is filled
into the carrier cover” (id. at 5:22-28).
Claims 1-8 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A tooth prosthesis carrier implant comprising a carrier post (1), a
carrier element (2, 4) supported on the carrier post (1) for supporting a tooth
crown or a tooth prosthesis, a spring element (3) disposed in a space between
the carrier post (1) and the carrier element (2, 4) so as to bias the carrier
element (2, 4) axially away from the carrier post (1) and an elastomer
material which is introduced into the space formed between the carrier post
(1) and the carrier element (2, 4) in liquid form so as to completely fill the
space whereby, after in situ curing of the elastomer material, the carrier
element (2, 4) is firmly attached to the carrier post (1) by way of the
elastomer material.
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

3
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Laux
1
and Richards.
2
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Laux, Richards and Colpitts.
3
We will
consider the rejections together since Appellant has waived any argument
based on Colpitts (Appeal Br. 4).
The Examiner finds that “Laux discloses a tooth prosthesis carrier
implant 1 … comprising a carrier post 3, [and] a carrier element 4 supported
on the carrier post for supporting a tooth crown or a tooth prosthesis”
(Answer 3-4). The Examiner finds that Laux discloses “a spring element 6
… disposed in a space between the carrier post 3 and the carrier element 4 so
as to bias the carrier element axially away from the carrier post” (id. at 4), but
“is silent regarding an elastomer material being introduced into the space
formed between the carrier post and the carrier element” (id. at 5).
The Examiner finds that Richards discloses a carrier implant “wherein
an elastomer material 28 … is introduced into a space between a carrier post
21/24 and a carrier element 26 …, whereby, after in situ curing of the
elastomer material, the carrier element is firmly attached to the carrier post”
(id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify Laux, by introducing an elastomeric
material into a space formed between the carrier post and the carrier element
…, as taught by Richards, for the purpose of attaching the carrier post to the

1
Laux, US 2005/0250072 A1, published November 10, 2005.
2
Richards, US 3,827,145, issued August 6, 1974.
3
Colpitts, US 4,360,344, issued November 23, 1982.
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

4
carrier element while cushioning the implant from damaging shock and the
bone of the jaw from unpleasant jarring” (id.).
Appellant contends that the carrier implant of claim 1 would not have
been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
appreciated any advantages to combining a spring and an elastomer in a
carrier implant (Appeal Br. 4-5).
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Richards’
elastomer material with Laux’s spring-containing tooth prosthesis carrier
implant?
Findings of Fact
1. Laux discloses that dental implants with “spring elements …
arranged for shock damping” are known in the art (Laux 1, ¶ 0003).
2. Laux discloses an improved design for a spring-containing dental
implant which is easy to manufacture and install and which “provides for a
durable and secure connection of the implant parts of the dental implant
without detrimentally affecting the resiliency provided by damping springs
disposed in the implant” (id. at 1, ¶ 0005).
3. Laux discloses a “crown supported on [a] mounting post and a
spring element supported between the mounting post and the crown so that
the crown is movable within limits in axial direction relative to the mounting
post” (id. at 1, ¶ 0006).

Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

5
4. Figure 1 of Laux is shown below:

Figure 1 shows “a cross-sectional view … of a composite dental implant” (id.
at 1, ¶ 0017).
5. Laux discloses that the “crown 4 is disposed on the mounting post 3
and is adapted to receive and carry the artificial tooth structure or a
prosthesis” (id. at 1, ¶ 0019).
6. Laux discloses that “[i]n the cylindrical space between the
mounting post 3 and the crown 4 … a pretensioned spring element 6 is
disposed in the form of a spiral compression spring” (id. at 2, ¶ 0022).
7. Richards discloses “an artificial tooth structure based on an implant
to take the place of the root of an extracted tooth” (Richards, col. 1, ll. 3-5).
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

6
8. Figure 3 of Richards is shown below:

Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of an artificial tooth structure (id. at col. 2,
l. 66 – col. 3, l. 1).
9. Richards discloses that the “implant 21 is formed with a recess 23
… and receives a peg portion of a bulbous spigot 24 … [which] is secured in
the recess … by a suitable cement 32” (id. at col. 3, ll. 8-12).
10. Richards discloses that “an artificial crown section 26 … is placed
over the bulbous portion of the spigot 24, and is held in place by a somewhat
flexible and preformed basket like member 27 which is previously inserted
into a cavity in the crown section 26” (id. at col. 3, ll. 15-20).
11. Richards discloses that “[w]hen the crown section 26 is thus held
in position a fast curing elastomeric material 28 … is injected into this space
through an aperture 29 in the wall of the crown section 26 so as to fill the
space between the wall of the cavity of the crown section 26 and the spigot
24” (id. at col. 3, ll. 24-29).
12. Richards discloses that the “elastomeric material 28 will permit a
degree of resilient movement of the crown section when in use … to cushion
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

7
the implant 21 from damaging shock and the bone of the jaw from unpleasant
jarring” (id. at col. 3, l. 46 – col. 4, l. 6).
Analysis
Claim 1 is directed to an implant comprising a carrier post supporting a
carrier element for supporting, for example, a tooth crown. Claim 1 also
requires a spring, disposed in a space between the carrier post and the carrier
element, to bias the carrier element axially away from the carrier post, and an
elastomer material in the spring-containing space that attaches the carrier
element to the carrier post.
Laux discloses that the use of springs in dental implants for shock-
damping was known in the art, including the use of springs in between the
post and crown of Laux’s device, which correspond to the carrier post and
carrier element of claim 1. Richards discloses that a fast curing elastomeric
material can be injected into a dental implant to provide a shock damping
material between a crown and an implant post. In view of these disclosures,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an
elastomeric material, as disclosed by Richards, to Laux’s implant carrier in
order to provide additional shock-damping.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not suggest an advantage
for the combination of a spring and an elastomer material (Appeal Br. 4-5).
Appellant argues that “[i]t was only the present inventor who has recognized”
that the claimed combination provides not only the advantage that the
elastomer material provides reliable sealing of the space holding the spring
but also that the spring/elastomer combination “provides for a pretensioning
of the crown mount away from the mounting post so that a compression force
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

8
is applied to the elastomer material only when the pre-tensioning force of the
spring is exceeded,” which preserves the life of the elastomer as compared to
the use of elastomer alone (id. at 5).
This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the combination
of Laux and Richards would have made obvious a carrier implant with both a
spring and an elastomer because both were disclosed to contribute to a shock
damping effect in the implant. The fact that Appellant has recognized
additional benefits of the combination, i.e. a sealing function of the elastomer
and less wear and tear on the elastomer, does not show that the claimed
combination would not have been obvious. Notably, Appellant has not
alleged that the claimed device is unexpectedly superior to the closest prior
art device(s), nor has he provided evidence to support such a position.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Laux and Richards. Claims 2-7 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We also affirm the
rejection of claim 8 because Appellant has waived any argument based on
Colpitts (Appeal Br. 4).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to combine Richards’ elastomer material with
Laux’s spring-containing tooth prosthesis carrier implant.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-004509
Application 11/711,186

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

alw