Appeal No. 2007-0606
Application No. 10/011,338
appellants' argument that Sertich does not teach an immobilized pillar. The rejection
of claims 35, 42 and 43 is affirmed.
Claim 41
With respect to claim 41, the examiner contends that Sertich, Figures 1A and 3
teach that the holes have a diameter or width substantially less than the diameter of the
width of said pillars. We agree with the examiner that Figures 1A and 3 teach the
limitations of claim 41.
To begin, appellants have not defined what is meant by the claim phrase
"substantially less than" in the context of the present claim within the specification. We
look to the ordinary meaning of this term. The term substantial is defined as "being of
considerable importance, value degree or amount. Webster's II New Riverside
Dictionary, New Riverside Publishers, New York, page 1155 (1994). Thus in our view
the claim requires that the width of the holes be considerably smaller than the width of
the pillars. The examiner draws a size inference from the depiction of the implant of
Figure 19.
"[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions
of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be
relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See
also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2125.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013