Ex Parte MORIYAMA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 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. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5