Ex Parte Yoon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

13384810 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 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.
13/384,810 01/19/2012 Ji Hoon Yoon CU-9580 ZBF 4569
26530 7590 06/21/2017
T ADASfrPARRY T T P
EXAMINER
224 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE PATEL, YOGESH P
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60604 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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):
ChicagoU SPTO@ladas.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JI HOON YOON and SANG OH PARK
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/3 84,8101
Technology Center 3700
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims to a dental
implant fixture capable of being implanted in bone tissue. The Examiner
rejected the claims for obviousness.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The following rejections are before us for review:
(1) Claims 1—3, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for obviousness over
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA” (Appellants’ Figure 2)),
Lazzara,2 and Lang3 (Ans. 2—3); and
1 Appellants state that “OSSTEMIMPLANT CO., LTD. is the real party in
interest.” App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
(2) Claims 4 and 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for obviousness
over AAPA, Lazzara, Lang, and Mochida2 3 4 (Ans. 4).
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (App. Br. 16—17
(emphasis added)):
1. An implant fixture that is adapted to be implanted into
a bone tissue including cortical bone and cancellous bone while
rotating on a central axis to thereby form an artificial tooth root,
the implant fixture comprising:
a first portion that comprises a first screw thread having
first peaks and first roots alternating with one another on an
outer surface of the first portion; and
a second portion that is disposed below the first portion,
wherein a second screw thread having second peaks and second
roots alternating with one another is formed on an outer surface
of the second portion, wherein distances between adjacent
second peaks of the second screw thread are equal to distances
between adjacent first peaks of the first screw thread, and
wherein outer diameters of the second screw thread are the
same in up and down directions and inner diameters of the
second screw thread are less than inner diameters of the first
screw thread', and
a third portion that is disposed below the second portion,
wherein a third screw thread having third peaks and third roots
alternating with one another on an outer surface of the third
portion, and wherein a cutting edge is caved to be more
adjacent to the central axis than the third roots and is arranged
only in the third portion and is arranged around the outer
surface of the third portion below the screw thread, and
wherein the first screw thread and the second screw
thread each have at least double threads, and
2 US 5,000,686 (issued Mar. 19, 1991).
3 US 2005/0250074 A1 (published Nov. 10, 2005).
4 US 5,642,996 (issued July 1, 1997).
2
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
wherein the outer diameter of the first screw thread and
the outer diameters of the second screw thread are the same,
and
wherein the first screw thread and the second screw
thread are continuously connected to each other.
OBVIOUSNESS—
AAPA, LAZZARA, AND LANG
The Examiner’s Prima Facie Case
In rejecting claims 1—3 over AAPA, Lazzara, and Lang, the Examiner
cited AAPA as disclosing a dental implant fixture having threaded first,
second, and third portions as recited in the rejected claims, but differing
from the claims in not having the thread configuration required by the
claims. Ans. 2.
As evidence that it was known in the art to configure threaded bone-
implantable dental implant fixtures to have the thread configuration required
by claims 1—3, the Examiner cited Lazzara as disclosing an implant fixture
having cylindrical top portion and a tapered bottom portion, with the
diameter of some of the threads of the bottom tapered portion having the
same outer diameter as required by claim 1, and with some of the threads at
the bottom tapered portion having a smaller diameter than the top portion, as
also required by claim 1. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner concluded that an
ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to modify the AAPA
implant to have the thread configuration taught by Lazzara, thereby meeting
the thread limitations in Appellants’ claim 1,
because near the apical end of the shaft/core the threads are
deeper and will cut more deeply into the side walls of the
prepared bore in the bone; it provides increased thread
engagement between the implant and the bone deep within the
3
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
bore and a strong anchor to hold the implant immobile during
healing process.
Ans. 3.
The Examiner cited Lang as evidence that it would have been obvious
to provide an implant with double threads as required by the claims, because
double threads “enable a cleaner insertion of the implant as less bone
deterioration and healing time is reduced as a result.” Id-
Analysis
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden ... of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability. . . .
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
Appellants’ argument, essentially, is that the Examiner erred in
finding that Lazzara teaches or suggests the combination of first, second, and
third portions required by claim 1, even when combined with AAPA and
Lang. See App. Br. 10-14.
In particular, Appellants contend, Figure 1 of Lazzara does not teach
or suggest a second central portion of its implant having “1) multiple
portions or screw threads, or 2) its outer diameter of a second screw thread
being the same as the outer diameter of a first screw thread.” Id. at 13.
Rather, Appellants contend, “the outer diameter Dt of the tapered apical
portion [of Lazzara’s implant] is never equal to the outer diameter Dp of the
cylindrical gingival region as shown in Figure 1 and in column 3, lines 5—9 .
. . .” Id. (quoted language omitted).
4
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
The Examiner responds that Lazzara “clearly shows that the outer
diameters of the first and the second portions are the same in up and down
direction (see reference numeral 15 in Lazarra’s [sic] figure lfi (Ans. 5),
and provides the following annotated version of Lazzara’s Figure 1 to
illustrate that position:
Figure 1 of Fazzara shows a bone-implantable dental implant fixture
with annotations by the Examiner to show the threads and peaks of the
implant, as well as annotations by the Examiner showing first, second, and
third portions of the implant alleged to have the features of the first, second,
and third portions required by Appellants’ claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
Appellants reply that Lazzara’s implant has only two portions, a
cylindrical and tapered portion, and contend that the Examiner arbitrarily
labeled Lazzara’s Figure 1 to have a second portion. Reply Br. 4—7.
Moreover, Appellants contend, the Examiner’s rationale for modifying the
implant of the AAPA only provides motivation for providing the implant
with the deeper threads at the apical (bottom) portion of the implant, not for
providing the AAPA implant with the second portion required by claim 1.
Id. at 7—8.
Having carefully considered the arguments and evidence on both
sides, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the implant fixture recited in claim 1 would have been
obvious to an ordinary artisan.
Lazzara discloses, as seen in Figure 1 reproduced above, a “dental
implant fixture 10 has a partially-tapered main body shaft 12 bearing
screwthreads 14 having peaks truncated on a cylindrical locus 15 of diameter
Dp.” Lazzara 3:1—4. Lazzara discloses:
In the preferred embodiment illustrated, the shaft is cylindrical
from its gingival [top] end 16 to the bottom of the bore 26, that
is, from turn 14.1 to turn 14.3, following which the shaft tapers
to a smaller diameter toward its apical [bottom] end 18. Three
turns 14.4 to 14.6 are borne on the tapered portion of the shaft.
Id. at 3:36-41.
As we understand the Examiner’s position, the cylindrical section of
Lazzara’s implant at thread turns 14.1/14.11 and 14.2 corresponds to the first
portion of the implant fixture of Appellants’ claim 1, the tapered section of
Lazzara’s implant at turns 14.3 and 14.4 corresponds to claim 1 ’s second
portion, and the tapered section at turns 14.5 and 14.6 corresponds to claim
6
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
1 ’s third portion. See Ans. 6; see also Lazzara Fig. 1. Thus, contrary to
Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 7), each of the sections of Lazzara’s
implant asserted as corresponding to the portions of claim 1 has a plurality
of peaks and roots.
Moreover, because Lazzara’s implant tapers to a narrower diameter
starting at turn 14.3, the section of Lazzara’s implant fixture at turns 14.3
and 14.4, asserted by the Examiner as corresponding to claim 1 ’s second
portion, has a narrower diameter than the uppermost section of Lazzara’s
fixture, as claim 1 requires. See App. Br. 16 (“inner diameters of the second
screw thread are less than inner diameters of the first screw thread”) (claim
1).
As the Examiner points out, moreover, the outer diameter of the
threads of turns 14.3 and 14.4 are shown to have diameter “Dp,” the same
diameter as the threads at turns 14.1/14.11 and 14.2 (see Ans. 5—6; see also
Lazzara Fig. 1), thus meeting claim 1 ’s requirement for the outer diameters
of the threads of the first and second portions to be the same. See App. Br.
16—17 (“outer diameters of the second screw thread are the same in up and
down directions” and “the outer diameter of the first screw thread and the
outer diameters of the second screw thread are the same”) (claim 1).
We, thus, agree with the Examiner that Lazzara’s implant has a
second portion that includes all of the features Appellants’ claim 1 requires
of the second portion of the claimed implant.
We again acknowledge Appellants’ contention that the outer diameter
Dt of the tapered bottom portion is never equal to the outer diameter Dp of
the cylindrical region shown Lazzara’s Figure 1. App. Br. 13 (citing
Lazzara 3:5—9). However, that the outer diameter Dt at the bottom portion
7
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
of Lazzara’s implant is less than diameter Dp does not negate the finding by
the Examiner (Ans. 5), supported by Lazzara’s Figure 1, that the outer thread
diameter Dp at turns 14.3 and 14.4 is shown to be the same as the outer
thread diameter at turns 41.1/14.11 and 14.2, despite the narrower tapering
inner diameter at turns 14.3 and 14.4. See Lazzara Fig. 1 (thread diameters
at turns 14.1/14.11, 14.2, 14.3, and 14.4 all extend from diameter references
10 to 15).
As to Appellants’ contention that the Examiner arbitrarily labeled
Lazzara’s implant as having three portions (Reply Br. 6—7), we note that
claim 1 does not require the portions of its fixture to constitute any particular
proportion of the overall structure. Thus, in that respect, claim 1
encompasses any implant, including that described in Lazzara, which
includes three sections having the features recited in the claim.
Appellants also do not persuade us (Reply Br. 7—8), that the
Examiner failed to articulate a reason to provide an implant with the second
section of Lazarra. As noted above, the Examiner concluded that an
ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to modify the AAPA
implant to have the thread configuration taught by Lazzara, thereby meeting
the thread limitations in Appellants’ claim 1,
because near the apical end of the shaft/core the threads are
deeper and will cut more deeply into the side walls of the
prepared bore in the bone; it provides increased thread
engagement between the implant and the bone deep within the
bore and a strong anchor to hold the implant immobile during
healing process.
Ans. 3.
Because Lazzara’s implant tapers, yet maintains the same thread
diameter at turns 14.3 and 14.4, the threads would be deeper, as the
8
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
Examiner found. Lazzara, moreover, teaches the desirability of the overall
thread configuration of its implant:
This combination of deeper threads at the apical end of the
fixture and more bone for them to cut into near the bottom of
the prepared bore provides increased thread engagement
between the fixture and the bone deep within the bore, and a
strong anchor to hold the fixture immobile during the healing
process. Elsewhere the threads help to anchor the fixture
against axial movement in the prepared bore, while-intimate
contact between the fixture and the host bone provides the best-
known environment for osseointegration to proceed.
Lazzara, 4:42-48.
Given the Examiner’s rationale, noted above, for providing the AAPA
implant with the thread configuration of Lazzara, taken with the relevant
teachings in Lazzara, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner failed
to articulate a sufficient reason for providing the AAPA implant with a
second portion having the features required by Appellants’ claim 1.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellants do not persuade us that
the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case that the implant fixture
recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan in view of
AAPA, Lazzara, and Lang. Because Appellants do not advance objective
evidence of nonobviousness, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over those references. Claims 2 and 3 fall with claim 1 because they were
not argued separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
OBVIOUSNESS—
AAPA, LAZZARA, LANG, AND MOCHIDA
In rejecting claims 4 and 5 the Examiner relied on the teachings
discussed above in AAPA, Lazzara, and Lang, and cited Mochida as
evidence that the thread configurations recited in claims 4 and 5, both of
9
Appeal 2016-004250
Application 13/384,810
which depend from claim 1, would have been obvious in an implant fixture
of the type taught in the other references. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue only that Mochida fails to cure the alleged,
deficiencies in claim 1, discussed above. App. Br. 14—15.
For the reasons discussed above, however, Appellants do not persuade
us that a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1. Because Appellants, therefore, do
not identify, nor do we discern, error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness as to claims 4 and 5, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims as well.
SUMMARY
For the reasons discussed, we affirm each of the Examiner’s
rejections.
TIME PERIOD
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
10