Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 15-19 as anticipated by Otani. The rejection is
sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Otani in
view of Wagner, Appellant merely relies on the argument discussed above
premised on a reading of the bone fixation body on Otani’s porous layer 8 in
combination with the core material base portion 13, which is not disclosed as
being porous, and not on the Examiner’s reading of the bone fixation body
on the porous layer 8 alone (Br. 18-19). For the reasons discussed above
with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 15-19 as
anticipated by Otani, Appellant’s arguments fail to demonstrate the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as unpatentable over Otani in view of
Wagner. The rejection of claim 20 is sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-18 as being
unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Sutter, Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to provide
Kawahara’s upper portion 4 with a bore to permit attachment of a prosthetic
tooth thereto with a screw as taught by Sutter (Answer 6). Rather,
Appellant’s arguments focus on the “completely uniform” language in
Appellant’s independent claims. In particular, Appellant argues that
Kawahara’s laminated body is not formed of a “completely uniform porous
structure” because it is formed of two layers 1 having relatively fine pores
and a layer 2 having relatively large pores (Br. 12-14).
Accordingly, the first issue presented to us in the appeal of the
rejection based on Kawahara is whether Kawahara’s laminated body is a
“completely uniform porous structure” as called for in independent claims 1,
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013