Ex Parte Pond

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 7, 2010

11073914 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GARY J. POND
____________

Appeal 2009-008521
Application 11/073,914
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008521
Application 11/073,914

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary J. Pond (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellant’s claimed invention is to dental tips used for dental
irrigation and delivery of dental fluids to dental pockets within a mouth
cavity. Spec. 1:4-6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A unitary, one-piece dental irrigation tip for delivering
fluids from a dental tool to a dental site, said tip comprising:
a proximal section, said proximal section providing
releasable locking means to said dental tool;
a distal section, said distal section providing at least one
opening for fluid delivery;
a fluid passageway passing from said proximal section to
said at least one opening; and
said proximal section and said distal section being of
unitary, one-piece construction.

Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bab (U.S. Patent
5,127,831; issued July 7, 1992).
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Bab discloses a dental
irrigation tip having a proximal section and a distal section being of unitary,
one-piece construction.
Appeal 2009-008521
Application 11/073,914

3
Appellant argues claims 1-9 as a group. App. Br. 3. We select claim
1 as representative, and claims 2-9 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner found that Bab discloses a dental irrigation tip having a
proximal section having a releasable locking means (a luer lock), a distal
section having at least one opening for fluid delivery, and a fluid
passageway passing from said proximal section to said at least one opening,
as called for in claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellant does not contest these findings.
The Examiner further found that Bab discloses the proximal and distal
sections can both be made of polyethylene and that the tip can be formed by
an insert molding process. Ans. 3. The Examiner found that this insert
molding process results in a unitary, one-piece dental irrigation tip. Id.
We find no error in these findings made by the Examiner. In
particular, we agree that Bab discloses an irrigation probe or tip made of a
rigid plastic arm and a flexible plastic distal end where the rigid arm and
distal end are joined by insert molding. Bab, col. 2, ll. 41-49; id. at col. 3,
ll. 5-20. We further agree with the Examiner that the insert molding process
described in Bab results in a one-piece, unitary construction irrigation tip. In
particular, we find that the process of insert molding of two materials having
similar properties results in bonding of the two parts such that the end
product is of a unitary, one-piece construction. See Appellant’s Spec. 2:19-
22 (“An insert molding process, which allows for the dental tip to be
designed as a unitary, one-piece dental tip, can be used to design the dental
tip); id. at 6, ll. 5-19 (describing that an insert molding process can be used
Appeal 2009-008521
Application 11/073,914

4
to form the one-piece, unitary construction dental tip “by injecting a polymer
around a core material, which could be another polymer, a ceramic perform
[sic, preform] or a metal component.”).
As such, we find no structural difference, and Appellant has not
adequately pointed to any structural difference, between the irrigation tip of
Bab formed by insert molding, and the claimed unitary, one-piece dental
irrigation tip, which is likewise formed by insert molding. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Bab.
Claims 2-9 fall with claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 is AFFIRMED.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk

RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C.
POST OFFICE BOX 26618
MILWAUKEE WI 53226