Appeal No. 97-0933
Application No. 08/200,118
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Slamin in view of Bolesky.
Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Slamin.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 7 (the final
rejection).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth
in the Appeal Brief.
OPINION
The Rejection Under Section 102
Independent claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated
by Slamin, which means that this reference must disclose,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine
Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Claim 1 is directed to a femoral component for a knee
system. It requires, inter alia, that there be an implantable
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007