Ex Parte Ellingsen et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-1526                                                                              
                Application 11/035,534                                                                        
                In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,                      
                1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  In assessing a broadest reasonable claim construction                 
                wherein a potentially exclusionary “consisting essentially of” transitional                   
                phrase is involved, it is appropriate that Appellants bear the burden of:  (1)                
                showing the basic and novel characteristics of their claimed invention, and                   
                (2) establishing how those characteristics would be materially changed by                     
                any allegedly excluded component of an applied reference.  See In re                          
                DeLajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74, 143 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1964);                               
                Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).                                        
                      Here, Appellants have not carried this burden by their unsubstantiated                  
                arguments to the effect that representative claim 79 would exclude the post                   
                treatment step of Haruyuki with hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen fluoride in                    
                solution.  In this regard, we note that claim 42, which depends from claim                    
                79, provides for a further treatment step following the hydrofluoric acid                     
                treatment.  Thus, claim 79 is not closed to other treatment steps, which may                  
                beneficially affect the implant biocompatibility.  Moreover, Appellants                       
                expressly indicate that they do not consider their inventive contribution to be               
                bound by the theory or their thoughts that biocompatibility is enhanced by                    
                retention of fluoride on the implant surface (Specification 4: 31- 5: 2).3                    
                      Furthermore, and assuming that such a post treatment step were                          
                excluded by representative claim 79, it is our view that it would have been                   
                                                                                                             
                3 Indeed, U.S. Patent No. 4,330, 891, of record (referenced in the                            
                Specification at 2) would appear to suggest that the presence of fluoride ions                
                was known to be beneficial to tissue growth around an implant surface (col.                   
                4, ll. 8-28).  In the event of further prosecution of the subject matter of this              
                application before the Examiner, the Examiner should consider whether this                    
                patent together with other prior art of record would render any pending                       
                claims unpatentable.                                                                          
                                                      8                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013