Norman Ho Kwong. Kwan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2019

15344812 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2019)

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.
15/344,812 11/07/2016 Norman Ho Kwong Kwan 02199.0001US02 1459
127289 7590 09/13/2019
Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP/RO
Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP
11 Schoen Place, 7th Floor
Pittsford, NY 14534
EXAMINER
SAUNDERS, MATTHEW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2019 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):
RO127289@iplawusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte
NORMAN HO KWONG KWAN1
__________

Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 3–19. Br. 3. Claim 2 has been canceled. Br. 26
(Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the
reasons explained below, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1
and 3–19 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

1 “The Real Party in Interest is the inventor, Norman Ho Kwong Kwan.” Br.
3.
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to dental implants. See Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method for simultaneously installing multiple dental
implants, the method comprising sequential steps of:
forming a plurality of holes in a jawbone of a patient;
attaching multiple dental assemblies to the jawbone, each
dental assembly comprising:
an abutment adaptor that is removably connected
to an implant fixture by an abutment screw, the abutment
adaptor further comprising a hexagonal portion exposed above
the implant fixture and an indexed protrusion disposed below
the hexagonal portion, the implant fixture being inserted into a
hole in the plurality of holes, the implant fixture providing an
indexed recessed wall that engages the indexed protrusion of
the abutment adaptor such that spatial orientation of the implant
fixture and the indexed recessed wall is translated to the
hexagonal portion of the abutment adaptor;
wherein the step of attaching installs the implant
fixture into the jawbone to a depth such that the hexagonal
portion is exposed above soft tissue about the jawbone;
permitting the soft tissue around the plurality of holes to
heal wherein the hexagonal portion remains exposed above the
soft tissue due to the hexagonal portion being exposed above
the implant fixture;
determining relative spatial orientations of each of the
implant fixtures and each of the indexed recessed walls; the step
of determining relative spatial orientations comprises:
securing an extension into an internal bore of the
abutment screw of each implant fixture, the extension providing
an elongated guide pin with a length of at least 5 mm, the
elongated guide pin extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of
the implant fixture;
intraorally scanning all of the elongated guide pins
and all of the hexagonal portions of each abutment adaptor;
removing the extension from the internal bore;
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

3
digitally producing a three-dimensional map of the
implant fixtures based on the step of intraorally scanning;
fabricating a monolithic connector comprising one
protrusion for each implant fixture, each protrusion fabricated
to provide a common path of insertion into all indexed recessed
walls of the implant fixtures;
removing the abutment adaptor from each of the implant
fixtures to reveal the indexed recessed wall;
attaching the monolithic connector to the indexed
recessed wall of each of the implant fixtures;
selecting a number of preformed crowns from a
predetermined inventory of available crowns;
affixing the number of preformed crowns to a
corresponding plurality of posts on the monolithic connector.
REFERENCES
Hurson et al. ’554 US 6,527,554 B2 Mar. 4, 2003
Kwan US 2006/0078847 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
Hurson ’176 US 2008/0261176 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
Marlin US 2014/0205969 A1 July 24, 2014
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
Claims 1, 3, 7–10, 12, and 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hurson ’176 and Marlin.
Claims 4–6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hurson ’176, Marlin, and Kwan.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hurson ’176, Marlin, and Hurson et al. ’554.

2 “The rejection to claims 1–19 base[d] on the [§] 112 second paragraph
rejection . . . is withdrawn.” Ans. 2. Note that claim 2 was previously
canceled in a Response to Non-Final Office Action dated July 28, 2017.
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

4
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7–10, 12, and 14–19
as unpatentable over Hurson ’176 and Marlin
Appellant argues all these claims (i.e., claims 1, 3, 7–10, 12, and 14–
19) together. See Br. 8–23. We select claim 1 for review, with the
remaining claims (i.e., claims 3, 7–10, 12, and 14–19) standing or falling
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
As an overview, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner identifies different
features of the various embodiments of Hurson ’176 noting that they “are
interchangeable.” Ans. 2 (referencing Hurson ’176 ¶ 122); see also Ans. 4,
Final Act. 3–4. Indeed, Paragraph 122 of Hurson ’176 states, “[v]arious
combinations or subcombinations of the specific features and aspects of the
embodiments can be made and still fall within the scope of the invention.”
Hence, as understood, the teachings of Hurson ’176 are not limited solely to
the specific embodiments as illustrated. This is, for all intents and purposes,
the position of Appellant, i.e., the teachings of Hurson ’176 should be
limited to the illustrated embodiments. See Appellant’s Brief generally.
Suffice it to say, we do not limit the disclosure of Hurson ’176 as urged by
Appellant because doing so would be contrary to the express teachings of
Hurson ’176, including Paragraph 122 thereof.
Regardless of any ‘mixing-and-matching’ taught in Paragraph 122 of
Hurson ’176 noted above, the Examiner also specifically references an
“abutment adaptor” depicted in Figures 13A and 13B of Hurson ’176. See
Final Act. 3, 4. Appellant addresses this embodiment arguing, “[t]he claims
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

5
require the abutment adaptor be removed.”3 Br. 18. As shown in Figure
13 of Hurson ’176, this depicted “abutment adaptor” is configured with
“threaded portion 502” which “can mate with the threaded chamber 70 of
the implant 20.” Hurson ’176 ¶ 110; see also Hurson ’176 Figs. 1B, 1C, and
7B. Appellant does not explain how such a threaded connection prevents the
abutment adapter from being “removably connected” to the implant as
recited. Hence, Appellant’s contention that the Figure 13 embodiment is not
“removably connected to an implant fixture” (see App. Br. 18–20) is not
persuasive. See also Ans. 4 (addressing a “scan-able precursor structure that
is removed and replaced with a final milled bridge”); 5.
Claim 1 further recites that this abutment adaptor comprises “an
indexed portion” for translation of an orientation.4 Appellant argues that
“[d]ue to the presence of the threaded (i.e. non-indexed) portion [502] there
is no translation of indexing.” Br. 11. In effect, Appellant’s argument is
that, because this Figure 13 embodiment in Hurson ’176 discloses a threaded
extension 502, such extension is not a teaching of an “indexed protrusion of
the abutment adaptor” that can translate the “spatial orientation of the
implant fixture” as recited.
Regarding the recited translation of a spatial orientation, Appellant’s
Specification states, “the longitudinal axis of each implant can be

3 To be clear, claim 1 recites that the “abutment adaptor” be “removably
connected to an implant fixture.”
4 The Examiner notes, “[t]he claims recite only that the implant fixtures have
‘an indexed recess’ without any further limitation as to describe the ‘indexed
recess’ to any particular shape or orientation or structure.” Ans. 2; see also
Ans. 3 (“the term ‘indexed portion’ does not require any particular shape,
and is a broad term not further defined in the claims”).
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

6
determined by extension of the abutment screw with the extension 500 to
exaggerate the orientation of the implant assembly 150.” Spec. ¶ 86; see
also Spec. ¶¶ 63, 70. Appellant discloses mating hexagonal shapes as
translating this longitudinal orientation of the implant (see e.g., Spec. Figure
5C) but Appellant’s Specification also indicates that other shapes may
suffice as well (see Spec. ¶ 66). Appellant’s Specification does not mention
a cylindrical threaded protrusion. Regardless, Appellant does not explain
how externally threaded portion 502 of Hurson ’176 would fail to translate
the longitudinal orientation of its mating internally threaded implant. We
thus are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that a threaded mating
between components does not translate an indexing (i.e., a longitudinal
orientation) between such components. See Br. 11; see also Ans. 2 (“The
spatial orientation of the implant fixture to abutment adaptor is indexed in a
longitudinal manner.”); 3 (“element 500 is indexed at least longitudinally to
the recess in the implant fixture”).
Appellant further contends, “[c]laims require translating the spatial
orientation of the indexed recess wall.”5 Br. 14. As indicated above,
Hurson ’176 states, “threaded portion 502 can mate with the threaded
chamber 70 of the implant 20.” Hurson ’176 ¶ 110. Appellant does not
explain why internally threaded chamber 70 of implant 20 would fail to
teach the recited “indexed recess wall” of the recited “implant fixture.”
Accordingly, in view of the above (including Appellant’s discussion of
conveying a longitudinal orientation (see Spec. ¶ 86)), Appellant’s

5 To be clear, the recited “indexed recess wall” is the internal female
component of the implant that receives the recited “indexed protrusion” of
the abutment adaptor. See e.g., Spec. Figure 5C.
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

7
contentions in this regard (see Br. 14–16) are not persuasive of Examiner
error.
Appellant further contends, “[t]he claimed abutment has both a
hexagonal portion and an indexed protrusion.”6 Br. 12; see also Br. 15–
16. The Figure 13 embodiment of Hurson ’176 discloses these features.
More specifically, Hurson ’176 teaches that abutment 500 has “a top surface
510 that includes a hexagonal protrusion 511.” Hurson ’176 ¶ 111.
Threaded portion 502 (discussed above) is located opposite that “top surface
510” or, as recited, “below the hexagonal portion” 511.
Appellant addresses this specific Figure 13 embodiment,
acknowledging upper element 511 as being hexagonal but contending that
“‘threaded portion 502’ below [] lacks the ‘indexed protrusion’ required in
the claims.” Br. 13. In view of the above discussion regarding the recited
“indexed protrusion,” we are not persuaded the Figure 13 embodiment of
Hurson ’176 lacks the above recited arrangement. See also Hurson ’176
¶ 122 (teaching mixing-and-matching “various combinations or
subcombinations”). Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions on this point (see
Br. 12–16) are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant also contends, “the claims specify the hexagonal portion
[i.e., the upper part of the abutment adapter] remains exposed above the soft
tissue due to the hexagonal portion being exposed above the implant
fixture.” Br. 16. Figure 13B of Hurson ’176 illustrates abutment adapter
500 inserted within implant 20, and Figure 14A illustrates implant 20

6 To be clear, the recited abutment adaptor comprises “a hexagonal portion”
and further, the recited indexed protrusion is “disposed below the hexagonal
portion.”
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

8
imbedded within jawbone 614 (with a series of crowns 612 supported above
the bone). Additionally, Paragraphs 74 and 75 of Hurson ’176 discuss top
surface 21 of implant 20 as being configured to provide support for other
components, including that of abutment adapter 500 (see Hurson ’176 Fig.
13B) or other “dental restorations” (see Hurson ’176 ¶ 75, Fig. 14A). In
view of the embodiments of Figures 13 and 14 of Hurson ’176, we are not
persuaded that one skilled in the art would fail to understand that hexagonal
portion 511 of abutment adapter 500 (inserted within implant 20) is exposed
above the implant fixture. See also Ans. 4 (Appellant’s argument “is not
persuasive as abutment portions of Hurson [’176] in the drawings are above
the soft tissue level” (referencing Hurson ’176 Fig. 13B)).
Appellant further addresses the limitation directed to “determining
relative spatial orientations of each of the implant fixtures and each of the
indexed recessed walls” by “intraorally scanning . . . the hexagonal portions
of each abutment adaptor.” Appellant contends that this scanning for
orientation purposes is not taught in Hurson ’176 because “[t]here is no
teaching [that] determines the spatial orientations of the indexed recessed
walls.” 7 Br. 17.
On this point, Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner referenced
Paragraph 119 of Hurson ’176 as teaching this limitation. See Br. 16; Final
Act. 4. This cited paragraph specifically addresses oral scanning so that “the
position and orientation of the copings can be recreated.” Paragraph 101 of
Hurson ’176 describes “an embodiment of a temporary coping 500 that can

7 The Examiner clarifies that this limitation “requires only the scanning of
the abutments while they are connected to the implant fixtures, not the
scanning of the indexed recess of the implant fixtures.” Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

9
be fitted onto the abutment.” Consequently, the teachings of Hurson ’176
are directed to the scanning of copings inserted into an abutment adapter
which is, itself, affixed to the implant via the implant’s “indexed recessed
walls” (as discussed above). See also Hurson ’176 ¶¶ 59, 60, 76, 98. Thus,
Appellant is not persuasive that the above limitation is not obvious in view
of these teachings.
Appellant also contends, “the figures of Hurson [’176] are
unrealistically parallel. In practice, multiple implants always have a
significant degree of non-parallel installation.” Br. 10. Although this
statement has no apparent bearing on whether Hurson ’176 assists in
rendering claim 1 obvious, we note that Appellant’s own figures (see, e.g.,
Figs. 5B–5F, 7 and 8A–8D) seem to illustrate the various hexagonal portions
all having the exact same orientation about their respective longitudinal axis,
likewise an equally unrealistic installation. See also Ans. 3 (“every
procedure depends on the patient and the execution of the installation [of the
implant] cannot be asserted without evidence that [the] parallelism shown
[in Hurson ’176] does not occur”). Appellant’s contention is not persuasive
of Examiner error.
Appellant additionally states, “Hurson [’176] only utilizes abutment
100 for single-implant situations. In contrast, the claims are specifically
drawn to multi-implant situations and the complexities associated
therewith.” Br. 10. Indeed, Paragraph 76 of Hurson ’176 addresses one
abutment per implanted tooth. However, a further reading indicates that the
teachings of Hurson ’176 “can be used to support a single dental restoration
(e.g., a crown) and/or can be used to support a plurality of dental restorations
(e.g., an implant supported bridge or denture).” Hurson ’176 ¶ 59. In view
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

10
of this teaching of multi-implant situations, Appellant’s contention that
Hurson ’176 is limited to restoring only a single tooth (thereby avoiding “the
complexities associated” with “multi-implant situations”) is not persuasive
of Examiner error. Br. 10; see also Ans. 3 (“element 500/504 is also used
for the creation of a superstructure to connect multiple implants”).
Appellant also argues that “Hurson [’176] describes a similar problem
in paragraph [0113] but Hurson [’176]’s solution is very different.” Br. 18.
According to Appellant, “Hurson [’176] is unconcerned with the spatial
orientations of the underlying indexed walls and relies on the
widened/tapered shape of implant 20 to ‘accommodate any misalignments.’”
Br. 18. Regardless of whether or not there is support for this contention in
Paragraph 113 of Hurson ’176, the Examiner also references Paragraph 119
of Hurson ’176 (see Final Act. 4) which, as noted above, addresses scanning
for “position and orientation” purposes. Appellant does not explain how the
latter disclosure regarding ascertaining an orientation fails to teach the
limitation “determining relative spatial orientations of each of the implant
fixtures and each of the indexed recessed walls” addressed by Appellant.
Br. 18.
Further, Appellant contends, “[t]he claims require selecting
preformed crowns from an inventory.” Br. 20. As noted by Appellant,
the Examiner relied on Paragraph 113 of Hurson ’176 for disclosing this
limitation. See Br. 20; Final Act. 4. Appellant replicates this paragraph (see
Br. 20) and contends that this paragraph “does not appear to teach the step of
‘selecting a number of preformed crowns from a predetermined inventory of
available crowns.’” Br. 21. There is merit to Appellant’s contention
regarding the Examiner’s specific reference to Hurson ’176’s “paragraph
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

11
[0113] lines 9–12.” Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner acknowledges a
“typographical error” occurred such that Paragraph 112 (same lines) should
have been identified instead. See Ans. 5. Paragraph 112 (and specifically
lines 9–12 thereof) describe a bridge having “crowns 601” that can be
employed to “complement the existing geometry of a patient’s dental
structures and to provide a natural appearance.” This same paragraph also
states that the bridge in question “can be used to support one or more crowns
601.” Hurson ’176 ¶ 112. Appellant does not address the teachings in
Paragraph 112 of Hurson ’176 regarding the use of matching crowns, but
instead focuses solely on the inapplicability of Paragraph 113 of Hurson
’176. See Br. 20–21. We understand the Examiner may have made an
inadvertent error, but we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
the teachings of Hurson ’176 fail to provide support regarding the making of
a selection among various crowns for matching purposes. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error, or that Hurson ’176 fails to teach the
limitation, “selecting a number of preformed crowns from a predetermined
inventory of available crowns.”
Regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Marlin, Appellant contends,
“[t]he number of components used by Marlin introduces significant risk.
For multiple implants, the danger in dealing with so many components
inside the oral cavity at the same time is even greater.” Br. 22. Marlin was
relied on for teaching elongate pins that are received in a threaded recess of
an abutment screw and wherein such pins have a length of at least 5 mm.
See Final Act. 5. We note that Appellant also teaches the use of an
additional extension secured into an abutment screw (see, e.g., Spec. Fig. 2),
which belies Appellant’s argument that the skilled artisan would be
Appeal 2019-001200
Application 15/344,812

12
discouraged from incorporating additional components. Further, avoiding
the “danger” regarding the use of multiple components within an oral cavity
is not a claimed feature. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rendering claim 1 obvious in view of Hurson ’176 and Marlin.
In summation, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7–10,
12, and 14–19 as being unpatentable over Hurson ’176 and Marlin is
unreasonable, mistaken, or improper. We sustain the rejection of these
claims.
The rejections of: (a) claims 4–6 and 11 as unpatentable over Hurson ’176,
Marlin, and Kwan; and, (b) claim 13 as unpatentable over Hurson ’176,
Marlin, and Hurson et al. ’554
With respect to these additional rejections, Appellant contends that
each dependent claim is “allowable for at least the same reasons” provided
above. Br. 23. We are not persuaded by this contention. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–6, 11, and 13 as being obvious over the
recited art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3–19 as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED