Appeal No. 97-0933
Application No. 08/200,118
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, stands rejected as
being unpatentable over Slamin in view of Elloy. We have
discussed the Slamin reference above, noting that it failed to
teach offsetting the bolt, as required by claim 1. Claim 2
adds to claim 1 the limitation that the offset range from 0 to
5 mm.
Elloy discloses a knee prosthesis comprising tibial,
meniscal and femoral components. The problem to which Elloy
directs his inventive efforts is insuring that the movement of
the meniscal component is limited, so that it does not move
out of alignment with the other components, that is,
dislocate, when the knee prosthesis is flexed, as in bending
or rotation (columns 2 and 6). Elloy provides a control peg
(21) which has a pair of parallel but offset portions (21a and
21b), one of which is inserted in a matching opening and the
other in a round or elongated opening, depending upon the
motion limits desired (Figures 7a, b, and c; column 6).
While we would agree with the examiner that Elloy
discloses an element in which one component is offset from the
other, neither the element nor the offset is for the same
purpose as that of the appellants’ invention. We fail to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007