Appeal No. 97-0935
Application 08/340,905
§ 112, second paragraph, rejections, save the rejection of
claim 8. See the Advisory Action (Paper No. 6). With respect
to claim 8, the examiner states that it is not clear what "the
part" refers to in the claim.
The examiner has rejected claims 14, 2 through 5, 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Collison.
The examiner has rejected claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Collison. According to
the examiner, Collison discloses all of the elements of claims
6
and 7 but does not disclose the specific length of the drill
part. According to the examiner, it would have been obvious
to make the drill part 3 to 18 millimeters long or, more
particularly, 4 to 12 millimeters long, as a matter of design
choice, in order to provide screws for different size bones.
The examiner has rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable or Collison in view of Gustilo.
According to the examiner, Collison fails to disclose the
indentation in the head being a hexagonal socket. Gustilo is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007