Appeal 2006-3162
Application 10/216,307
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 48, 50,
57, 60, 63, 74, and 75 over Gittleman; claims 49 and 51 over Gittleman in view of
Dinkelacker; claims 54, 69, 72, and 73 over Gittleman in view of Daftary; claim 66
over Gittleman in view of Hamada; and claims 76 and 77 over Gittleman in view
of Niznick.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address only the sole
independent claim, i.e., claim 48.1
Gittleman discloses “an apparatus to achieve a variable height trans-tissue
extension (TTE) useful in matching a prosthesis to underlying implant fixtures to
preserve soft tissue shape, improve hygienic care, improve the distribution of load
bearing forces and prevent a dissimilar metal, electrolytic effect below the tissue
line” (¶ 0003). The apparatus includes a typical implant (30), a series of TTEs (3,
4, 5 and 6) that can be used alone or in combination, a mounting element (2) and a
machine screw (7) (¶¶ 0006, 0012-0013). The implant has an upper conic
section (33) having a flared lip (34) and an internal surface (36) with a polygonal
recess (¶ 0013). Below the upper section is a cylindrical barrel (31) that terminates
in a rounded end (32). See id. The TTEs have a cylindrical through-hole (9), an
upper polygonal recess (14) and a lower polygonal projection (8) (¶ 0012). The
lower polygonal projection mates with the polygonal recess in the implant
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Dinkelacker, Daftary, Hamada or Niznick for
any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Gittleman as to the independent
claim (Answer 5-7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013