Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
bone. Based on these reference teachings, we are in agreement
with the examiner’s position to the effect that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
implant of Goble of thermoplastic material having an elastic
modulus like that of bone, and to partially embed in the surface
thereof a biocompatible material, in order to derive the benefits
taught by Moumene and Bokros. Thus, we conclude that the
reference evidence applied by the examiner is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 19/11.
The only argument that reasonably appears to be directed
against claims 18-20 is found on page 7 of the main brief,
wherein appellants argue that claim 18
recites unobvious subject matter for the reasons
recited above in Applicants’ response to [the]
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-17. For the reasons
discussed above in conjunction with claims 11, 26-28,
43 and 44, claims 19-23 are not rendered obvious by
Goble et al., in view of Moumene et al. and Bokros et
al.
Appellants’ very general argument in favor of patentability
is simply not persuasive that the examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19/11. Accordingly, we shall sustain the rejection of
representative claim 19/11, as well as claims 18, 19/43, 19/44,
20 that we have grouped with claim 19/11.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007