Appeal No. 2002-0282
Application 09/363,407
other alternatives, as follows. First, a large number of
monobloc prostheses of fixed inclination from which one could be
selected to meet the need of a particular patient (column 1,
lines 23 through 35). Second, a prosthesis stem having fixed
thereto one of a number of different ball-and-socket joints for
effecting a favorable angle of inclination (column 1, lines 36
through 52).
Considering the particular Tornier invention and the
background alternative options clearly discussed in the Tornier
reference, it is quite apparent to us that the humeral prosthesis
set of claim 11 simply would not have been obvious therefrom to
one having ordinary skill in the art, unless appellants’ own
teaching was impermissibly taken into account. It is for this
reason that we cannot support the rejection of appellants’ claims
based upon the Tornier teaching.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
obviousness rejection of claims 11 through 14.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007