Mike Zacher

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 21, 2020

13199536 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)

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. 13/199,536 09/01/2011 Mike Zacher PHDL2033-001 7247 26948 7590 10/21/2020 VENJURIS, P.C. 1938 E. OSBORN RD PHOENIX, AZ 85016-7234 EXAMINER MORAN, EDWARD JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3772 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2020 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): docketing@venjuris.com vclmdocket@venjuris.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MIKE ZACHER ____________________ Appeal 2020-001988 Application 13/199,536 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellant, “the . . . invention relates to a device and kit for facilitating the installation and fitting of artificial tooth crowns and inlays 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, “Mike Zacher . . . is the real party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001988 Application 13/199,536 2 in a patient's mouth.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we reproduce independent claim 5 as representative of the appealed claims. 5. A kit for preparing, fitting and placing periodontal prosthodontics comprising: a. at least one single finger covering; b. a periodontal prosthetic; and c. at least one bilayered adhesive patch comprising: a first layer and a second layer, the first and second layers being separably joined by a weak adhesive configured to form a light separable attachment between the first and second layers, wherein: (1) one external side of the first layer is attached by a strong adhesive to the single finger covering, the strong adhesive being configured to keep the first layer attached to the single finger covering while the first and second layers are being separated, and (2) an external side of the second layer has a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive is coupled to the periodontal prosthetic for placing inside a mouth such that when the single finger covering is removed from the periodontal prosthetic, the two layers separate and the second layer with the pressure sensitive adhesive remains on the periodontal prosthetic and the first layer remains on the single finger covering. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Croll (US 2005/0260539 A1, published Nov. 24, 2005) and Bries et al. (US 6,972,141 B1, issued Dec. 6, 2005) (“Bries”). Appeal 2020-001988 Application 13/199,536 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error because “neither Croll nor Bries . . . teach[es] a device that couples a pressure sensitive adhesive to a periodontal prosthetic using a single finger covering and a bilayered adhesive patch where the two layers of the bilayered adhesive patch separate and the first layer remains on the finger covering and the second layer remains on the periodontal prosthetic.” Appeal Br. 10. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellant. The Examiner properly relies on Croll’s glove 27 to disclose claim 5’s “at least one single finger covering.” Answer 3. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that “Croll does teach ‘at least one single finger covering’ since Croll teaches a glove, which includes 5 finger covers, each covering a single finger. In other words, the glove comprises at least one single finger covering.” Id. (emphases added). However, claim 1 additionally recites, with respect to the single finger cover: 1) “one external side of [the bilayered adhesive patch’s] . . . first layer is attached by a strong adhesive to the single finger covering, the strong adhesive being configured to keep the first layer attached to the single finger covering”; and 2) “when the single finger covering is removed from the periodontal prosthetic, the two layers separate and the second layer with the pressure sensitive adhesive remains on the periodontal prosthetic and the first layer remains on the single finger covering.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Restated, the independent claim requires that it is the single finger covering on which the bilayered adhesive patch’s first layer attaches—it is insufficient for the single finger covering to be connected to some other Appeal 2020-001988 Application 13/199,536 4 portion of a glove to which the bilayered adhesive patch’s first layer attaches. In contrast, Croll discloses pad 7 on a portion of glove 27 which does not cover a single finger. See, e.g., Croll, Fig. 7. The Examiner does not explain adequately how this portion of Croll’s glove is the claimed “single finger cover.” Although the Examiner finds that “Croll additionally discloses wherein the single finger covering is a finger cot, a rigid band or a flexible band,” the Examiner does not provide a citation to where Croll discloses these structures. Final Action 3. Further, our review of Croll does not show us where Croll discusses any of a finger cot, a rigid band, or a flexible band. Still further, the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to move Croll’s pad 7 from one portion of the glove to another portion—that is, the Examiner does not explain why one would move the pad from the portion of glove 27 which is not a single finger covering to a portion of the glove which covers a single finger. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 5. Remaining claims 7, 13, and 14 depend from claim 5 or otherwise include a similar recitation, and, thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 13, and 14. Appeal 2020-001988 Application 13/199,536 5 CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 5, 7, 13, 14 103 Croll, Bries 5, 7, 13, 14