Appeal No. 97-0933 Application No. 08/200,118 Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Slamin in view of Bolesky. Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Slamin. The rejections are explained in Paper No. 7 (the final rejection). The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in the Appeal Brief. OPINION The Rejection Under Section 102 Independent claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated by Slamin, which means that this reference must disclose, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Claim 1 is directed to a femoral component for a knee system. It requires, inter alia, that there be an implantable 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007