Appeal No. 2001-2004 Page 11
Application No. 08/956,715
explained in response to the appellants’ challenge why an artisan would expect that
providing the Scales silver coating with a surface energy level of 20 to 30 dynes per
centimeter would not adversely affect the release of silver ions at the level that permits
the implant to perform in the desired manner. In our view, if such a surface energy
level is counterproductive to the necessary ion release, the artisan would regard this as
a disincentive to make the proposed combination.
This rejection of claims 1 and 2 is not sustained.
(4)
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 stand rejected on the basis of Burrell in view of Bosley.
Burrell also is concerned with providing implanted devices with a surface coating of
anti-microbial metal which discharges ions. Burrell points out that there are problems
concerned with use of silver for this purpose, and it solves the problems by creating
atomic disorder of the material to cause release of ions. For the same reasons as were
related above with regard to the rejection based on Scales and Bosley, we also will not
sustain this rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10.
(5)
The examiner has rejected claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Burrell in view of Bosley and Fox, the latter being cited for teaching
coating the base material with a polymer. Be that as it may, Fox does not overcome the
problems we pointed out above with regard to attempting to combine Burrell and Bosley
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007