Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
Appellant additionally argues that Small’s porous cylinder 19 is not a
“completely uniform porous structure,” as recited in independent claims 1, 7,
and 16, does not meet the “entire bone fixation body is porous” limitation of
claim 2, is not “entirely porous from proximal to distal ends,” as recited in
claim 15, and does not have a “cross section formed entirely of the porous
structure,” as recited in claim 17, because of the plurality of spaced venting
holes 30 and the hollow configuration of the porous cylinder 19 (Br. 16-18).
As discussed above, Appellant’s claims do not specify a shape of the bone
fixation body and thus do not exclude a hollow cylindrical shape or a shape
formed with venting holes. The limitations at issue are thus met by the
hollow porous cylinder 19 of Small.
In light of the above, Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 15-19 as being
unpatentable over Small in view of Sutter.
Appellant argues that neither Small nor Sutter teaches a coronal body
having a triangular shape, as recited in claim 3 (Br. 17). The Examiner does
not address this limitation of claim 3 in the rejection based on Small in view
of Sutter. To the extent that the Examiner is relying on Sutter for a
suggestion of this feature (Answer 4), the Examiner has not coherently
demonstrated that Sutter teaches or suggests such, as discussed above with
respect to the rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Sutter. Accordingly,
Appellant has successfully demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3 as unpatentable over Small in view of Sutter. The rejection cannot
be sustained.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013