Ex Parte MORIYAMA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

13168026 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/168,026 06/24/2011
513 7590 04/22/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takeshi MORIYAMA
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.
2011_0934A 9252
EXAMINER
SEWARD, MATTHEW JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI MORIY AMA and
YUSEI KADOBA Y ASHI
Appeal2014-001605
Application 13/168,026
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Takeshi Moriyama and Yusei Kadobayashi (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-17 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by La Due (US 2,300,577, iss. Nov.
3, 1942) 1; and rejecting claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over La Due and Koide (US 2006/0263749 Al, pub. Nov. 23,
2006). Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 Although the Examiner's statement of this rejection omits claims 16, 17,
and 20, the Office Action Summary includes claims 16, 17 and 20 among
Appeal2014-001605
Application 13/168,026
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
15. An artificial tooth comprising:
an occlusal surface formed by grinding;
a grinding portion disposed in the occlusal surface; and
three or more reference points disposed on the grinding portion,
the reference points being configured and arranged so as to represent a
position and an angle of the artificial tooth.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -Anticipation
In contesting this rejection, Appellants present arguments directed to
independent claim 15 and do not separately argue dependent claims 16, 17,
and 20. Br. 8-10. Thus, we decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis
of claim 15, and claims 16, 17, and 20 stand or fall with claim 15.
The Examiner found that La Due discloses an artificial tooth
satisfying all of the limitations of claim 15. Final Act. 2 (citing La Due, Fig.
3).
Appellants argue that La Due fails to disclose "three or more
reference points disposed on a grinding portion, the reference points being
configured and arranged so as to represent a position and an angle of the
artificial tooth." Br. 8. In particular, Appellants assert that La Due at most
the rejected claims, and the detailed explanation of this rejection points to
structures in La Due that the Examiner finds satisfy the limitations recited in
these claims. See Final Act. 1, 2-3; see also Appeal Br. 4 (acknowledging
such). Thus, for purposes of this appeal, we treat claims 16, 17, and 20 as
having been rejected as anticipated by La Due.
2
Appeal2014-001605
Application 13/168,026
discloses two reference points on each tooth-one projection and one
depression. Id. at 9.
In response, the Examiner asserts that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "tooth" in light of the Specification refers to a set of teeth.
Ans. 5 (citing Spec. 31, 11. 15-18). The Examiner explains that, according to
the Specification, "[c]oupling tooth 11 includes four artificial teeth, l la-
11 d" and "it is coupling tooth 11 that contains three reference points, as is
clear from Figs. 7 and 10 of the drawings (the reference points are given the
reference numerals 15 and 16)." Id.
Appellants' Specification describes that " [ m] axillary artificial teeth
l la, 11 b, l lc, and l ld ... are connected to one another to constitute a
maxillary (upper-jaw) coupling tooth 11." Spec. 31, 11. 15-18. Similarly,
the Specification describes that "mandibular artificial teeth 12a, 12b, 12c,
andl2d ... are connected to one another to constitute a mandibular coupling
tooth 12." Id. at 31, 1. 23-32,1. l; see Fig. 7 (depicting maxillary coupling
tooth 11 and mandibular coupling tooth 12, each with four connected teeth).
The Specification also describes that each coupling tooth 11, 12 has a
grinding section 14 with three reference points 15, 16. Id. at 32, 11. 6-19.
Thus, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants'
Specification and drawings, we construe the "artificial tooth" of claim 15 as
including a set of teeth having reference points for ensuring proper position
and angle.
La Due discloses that a dentist uses a plurality of landmarks 21-25 to
determine if teeth are in the proper position and angular relationship.
La Due 2, col. 2, 11. 13-19. La Due further discloses that the landmarks are
ground down once the dentist verifies that the teeth are properly positioned.
3
Appeal2014-001605
Application 13/168,026
Id. at 11. 25-32; see also id. at 11. 49-51. As such, Appellants do not
persuade us that the Examiner's reading of the artificial tooth comprising
three or more reference points in claim 15 on La Due's set of teeth
comprising a plurality of landmarks is unreasonable.
Appellants also argue that "the structure of La Due would not be
capable of representing a position and an angle of the artificial tooth"
because "the angle of the occlusal surface would only be capable of being
determined with three reference points, and as stated above, there is no
disclosure in La Due of three or more reference points disposed on a
grinding portion." Br. 9. This argument is also not persuasive because it is
premised on the unconvincing argument discussed above that La Due fails to
disclose three or more reference points on a grinding portion. Moreover,
La Due discloses that the landmarks are used to determine if teeth are in the
proper position and angular relationship. La Due 2, col. 2, 11. 13-19.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that La Due anticipates the subject matter of claim 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, as well as claims 16, 17,
and 20, which fall with claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
La Due.
Rejection II - Obviousness
In contesting this rejection, Appellants argue merely that Koide does
not cure the asserted deficiencies in La Due vis-a-vis the anticipation
rejection. Br. 11. For the reasons discussed above, this argument fails to
apprise us of error in this rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
4
Appeal2014-001605
Application 13/168,026
claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over La Due and
Koide.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5