Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
When determining the scope of claims in a patent application, we give
the claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the subject
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in
the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully
met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s implant includes two primary components or bodies, a
coronal body 14 and a bone fixation body 16 (Specification 4: 10-13). The
coronal body 14 includes a transgingival section 24, which extends along the
gum or gingival tissue 38 of the patient, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and a dental
interface 26 extending upwardly from the transgingival section and provided
with a threaded bore 28 adapted to receive a fixation screw for connecting
the implant to a dental component (Specification 4: 14-22). The bone
fixation body 16 extends along the region where the implant contacts the
surrounding bone 36 once the implant is implanted into the jawbone
(Specification 5: 3-5). Preferably, the coronal body 14 and the bone fixation
body 16 are connected with a sintering process (Specification 2: 27-29).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013