Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
erred in rejecting claim 3 as unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Sutter.
The rejection cannot be sustained.
We turn our attention next to the rejection of clams 1-3, 5, 7-12, and
15-19 as unpatentable over Small in view of Sutter. The first issue presented
in the appeal of this rejection is very similar to that presented in the appeal
of the anticipation rejection based on Otani. Specifically, the Examiner is
reading the “bone fixation body” on the hollow porous cylinder 19 of Small
and taking the position that the body 35 of replacement abutment retaining
device 33 is a protrusion extending into the bone fixation body (Answer 6).
Appellant, on the other hand, appears to be arguing that Small’s porous
cylinder 19 and the body 35 of titanium replacement abutment retaining
device 33 together form the “bone fixation body” of claims 1, 7, and 16.
Consequently, according to Appellant, Small’s bone fixation body includes
both a porous cylinder and a solid titanium core and thus lacks a bone
fixation body formed of a completely uniform porous structure, as called for
in claims 1, 7, and 16 (Br. 17).
Accordingly, a threshold issue in deciding the appeal of the rejection
of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 15-19 as unpatentable over Small in view of
Sutter is whether Small’s porous cylinder 19 alone reasonably corresponds
to the bone fixation body recited in Appellant’s independent claims 1, 7, and
16, with the body 35 constituting merely a protrusion of the coronal body
(replacement abutment retaining device 33), akin to Appellant’s protrusion
86 in Fig. 6. For the reasons discussed above with respect to the anticipation
rejection based on Otani, we conclude that Small’s porous cylinder 19 does
reasonably correspond to the bone fixation body of claims 1, 7, and 16.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013