Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
Appellants also note (main brief, page 6) that Bokros
discloses that the loops/coils of the springs may be sintered to
each other, and that this arrangement would be inappropriate in
appellants’ (and presumably Moumene’s) device because it would
override the properties of the polymer substrate. This argument
is not persuasive for several reasons. First, the argument is
not persuasive with respect to claim 11 because claim 11 does not
preclude the biocompatible material from being springs whose
loops/coils interengage. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348,
213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) (arguments predicated on limitations
that do not appear in the claims fail at the outset). Second, in
contrast to what appellants would apparently have us believe,
Bokros does not require that the loops/coils of the individual
springs be sintered together. See, for example, the Figures 4-6
embodiment of Bokros where adjacent spring coils are not
connected together. Third, in following the teachings of the
prior art, the ordinarily skilled artisan is expected to exercise
a certain amount of common sense and skill in combining reference
teachings (see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, presuming skill on the part of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007