Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
large, and thus not “pores,” are not interconnected, and are not “interstitial.”
Appellant further argues that Sutter has no material under the surface that is
permeated with the interstitial pores (Br. 7-8). Additionally, Appellant
argues that, even if Sutter’s holes are porous, the bone fixation body of
Sutter is not formed of “completely” porous structure (Br. 8).
Appellant’s independent claims do not recite a pore size.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from
Appellant’s Specification that the geometric configuration of the porous
structure should encourage natural bone to migrate and grow into and
throughout the entire body (Finding of Fact 3). Bone grows into the holes
73e of Sutter’s implant (Finding of Fact 5). Sutter’s holes are therefore
pores of appropriate geometric configuration within the context of
Appellant’s invention. Additionally, Sutter’s holes 73e extend into the
material of the implant from the surface through material under the surface
and are interconnected by the central passage through the implant material.
We thus conclude that Sutter comprises a bone fixation body (the base to be
anchored in a jaw) formed of a porous structure, in that the material at and
under the surface of the base is permeated with interconnected interstitial
pores (the through holes 73e and the central passage) that communicate with
the surface so as to encourage natural bone to migrate and grow into and
throughout the entire base. Further, Sutter’s through holes 73e are dispersed
uniformly over the entirety of the surface of the base. The base is thus
formed of a completely uniform porous structure, as called for in
independent claims 1, 7, and 16.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013