Ex Parte Abboud

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 2017

13203244 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2017)

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. 13/203,244 11/03/2011 Marcus Abboud TS/ABB 1101 US-PAT 5792 96897 7590 08/10/2017 PATFNT T AW OFFTOFS OF DR NORMAN R THOT EXAMINER POSTFACH 10 17 56 KAMIKAWA, TRACY L RATINGEN, 40837 GERMANY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3775 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2017 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 MARCUS ABBOUD Appeal 2015-0057351 Application 13/203,2442 Technology Center 3700 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 10 and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 27, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 7, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 10, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 2, 2014). 2 Appellant identifies the inventor, Marcus Abboud, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-005735 Application 13/203,244 We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “refers to a method for the production of a drilling jig for drilling a drill hole in a patient’s jaw for the purpose of inserting a tooth implant.” Spec. 11. Claims 10 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A method for producing a drilling jig to drill a drill hole in a jaw of a patient to insert a tooth implant therein, the method comprising the steps of: [(a)] providing a reference plate having a bipartite design, the reference plate comprising: [(i)] an individualized part configured to be adaptable to at least one of the jaw and teeth of the patient, and [(ii)] a standardized plate part comprising at least two reference markers and at least one first coupling part; [(b)] adapting the reference plate to the at least one of the jaw and teeth of the patient; [(c)] placing the reference plate on the at least one of the jaw and teeth of the patient; [(d)] creating a three-dimensional digital jaw model of the at least one of the jaw and teeth of the patient and the at least two reference markers; [(e)] designing the tooth implant in the three-dimensional digital jaw model; [(f)] digitally constructing the tooth implant in the three- dimensional digital jaw model; [(g)] forming a drilling model with a drilling model drill channel using the three-dimensional digital jaw model showing the digitally constructed tooth implant, wherein the drilling model is a standardized part comprising at least one second 2 Appeal 2015-005735 Application 13/203,244 coupling part configured to respectively couple with the at least one first coupling part; [(h)] mounting the drilling model on the reference plate by coupling the at least one second coupling part with the respective at least one first coupling part; and [(i)] drilling a reference plate drill channel into the reference plate in alignment with the drilling model drill channel, the reference plate with the reference plate drill channel thereby forming the drilling jig for drilling the drill hole in the jaw of the patient for the tooth implant, [(j)] wherein the at least two reference markers are opaque when capturing a three-dimensional digital jaw model. REJECTION Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jacotti (WO 2008/117323 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Jacotti does not disclose the claimed “at least two reference markers,” as recited in claim 10, limitations (a)(ii), (d), and (j). App. Br. 8—11; see also Reply Br. 8—10. The Examiner finds that Jacotti discloses limitations (a)(ii) and (d), as recited in claim 10. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Jacotti, Figs. 1—3a, 5—6; ^fl[ 25—32, 36-42, 49—55, 61—66). And the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to form the “at least two reference markers” as protrusions, and make the protrusions radio-opaque, as recited by limitation (j). Id. at 6—7. Jacotti relates to a method for making a surgical template for dental implantation. Jacotti 11. Jacotti describes a base template 1 comprising a coupling portion 4 for coupling to residual teeth, and a reconstructed 3 Appeal 2015-005735 Application 13/203,244 portion 6 having a missing tooth shape. Id. 122. The base template is associated to a reference device 10, forming a reference assembly. Id. 124. The reference device 10 has a plate 14, having a horsehoe plan that is made of a “substantially radio-opaque material.” Id. ^fl[ 25—26. Plate 14 is introduced in the oral cavity with base template 1. Id. ]f 28. Plate 14 exhibits “first reference means suitable for defining predetermined positions on the plate itself.” Id. 129. The first reference means comprises either a plurality of holes 22 or a plurality of projections. Id. ^fl[ 30-32. The base template is associated to plate 14 and introduced into the patient’s oral cavity. Id. 134. Then, a CAT obtains a model of the reference set associated to the dental arch. See id. Fig. 5, Tflf 36, 42. As shown in Figure 5 of Jacotti, the model consists of at least a portion of the dental arch, at least a portion of the base template, and at least a portion of the reference device, all coupled to one another. Id. 137. A model of construction elements relating to implant planning is determined on the dental arch model. Id. Fig. 5,1143^14. Once the implant model 30 is positioned relative to the model of the dental arch, a volume model 40 is generated, having a shape similar to plate 14. Id. ^fl[ 48-49. Volume model 40 has a second reference means suitable for coupling to the first reference means. Id. 150. For example, the second reference means may comprise a plurality of projections that couple to holes of the reference device, or it may comprise a plurality of holes that couple to projections of the reference device. Id. Tflf 51—52. The Examiner takes the position that the “inner ones of [Jacotti’s first reference means] 22” describe the claimed “at least two reference markers,” and a “distal one of [Jacotti’s first reference means] 22” describes the 4 Appeal 2015-005735 Application 13/203,244 claimed “at least one first coupling part.” See Final Act. 4 (citing Jacotti, 25—32, 49-55, 61—66, Figs. 1—3a); see also Ans. 5. We have reviewed each of the portions of Jacotti cited by the Examiner. Yet, we find nothing in any of the cited portions that describes or suggests that inner members of reference means 22 are “reference markers” in the three-dimensional digital jaw model, and a distal member of reference means 22 is the first coupling part. Instead, Jacotti describes that the entire first reference means couples the second reference means. See, e.g., Jacotti 1 50. Further illustrating this point, Jacotti’s three-dimensional digital jaw model, shown in Figure 5 of Jacotti, which is used for designing the tooth implant, does not depict reference means 22, much less describe or suggest that inner ones of reference means 22 are the claimed at least two reference markers. On this record, the Examiner does not adequately support the finding that Jacotti discloses or suggests the claimed reference markers. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claim 12 Independent claim 12 includes language substantially similar to the language of independent claim 1 and stands rejected based on the same erroneous findings. See Final Act. 4—6. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5