Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
inserted within the jawbone through a surgical incision in the gum tissue.
The cylinder and plug are retained for a healing period of several months
while adjacent bone tissue grows into and through the mesh. The surgeon
then cuts the gum tissue again, removes the plug from the cylinder, and
threads a titanium replacement abutment retaining device 33 into the
cylinder. The abutment retaining device projects from the jawbone and gum
tissue for attachment of a dental prosthesis (col. 2, ll. 33-53; col. 4, l. 54 to
col. 5, l. 29).
9. Wagner discloses a dental implant having multiple textured surfaces.
With reference to Fig. 1, a first surface region 24 is sufficiently porous to
permit growth of bone therein (col. 3, ll. 64-65). A second surface region 26
comprises a non-porous biocompatible metal that is sufficiently rough to
permit bone to attach thereto (col. 4, ll. 15-17). A third surface region 28
comprises a non-porous biocompatible metal that is substantially smooth
(col. 4, ll. 37-38). As illustrated in Fig. 5, Wagner discloses a further
embodiment wherein the porous coating 38’’’ of first surface region 24’’’ is
formed with a macrotexture, including concave and convex features such as
dimples, grooves, or ridges (col. 5, ll. 28-32). The Examiner relies on
Wagner for the teaching of the macrotexture in Fig. 5.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Sutter does not anticipate independent claims 1,
7, and 16 because Sutter does not disclose a bone fixation body formed of a
“porous” structure, as “porous” is defined in Appellant’s Specification (Br.
7). Specifically, Appellant contends that Sutter’s through holes 73e are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013