Appeal 2006-3162
Application 10/216,307
(¶ 0013). The TTEs alternatively can have a lower mating recess instead of a
mating projection. See id. The mounting element can be a straight abutment
having a countersunk through-hole (19), conic tapers (20, 22), a flat surface (21)
and a polygonal projection (23) (¶ 0012). The polygonal projection mates snugly
with the TTE’s upper polygonal recess. See id. The machine screw’s shaft
extends through the mounting element and the TTE to mate with internal threads in
the implant’s cylindrical barrel (¶ 0013; Fig. 3).
The Appellant’s claim 48 requires “a coronal base adapted to be at least
partially inserted in the jawbone when connected to said apical insert that has been
at least partially inserted in the jawbone”.
The Examiner relies upon Gittleman’s TTE as corresponding to the
Appellant’s coronal base (Answer 3). The Examiner argues that “there is no
structure in Gittleman to prevent the apical insert to be driven to such a depth in
the jawbone so that the coronal base is at least partially located in the jawbone”
(Answer 9). The Appellant argues (Reply Br. 5):
Gittleman discloses in the Abstract and in paragraph 0003 that the TTE is
used to preserve “soft tissue shape” when using the apparatus of Gittleman.
Soft tissue is known as the tissue surrounding the jawbone, not the jawbone
itself. As such, Gittleman does not disclose, teach or suggest that the TTE is
designed to be inserted into the jawbone when connected to implant 30.
Indeed, the names of the components of Gittleman indicate that implant 30 is
a structure to be implanted in the jawbone and the TTE is a spacer designed
to extend through and above the soft tissue located above the jawbone.
The Examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which
shows that Gittleman’s TTE, which is a trans-tissue extension for preserving soft
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013