Appeal No. 97-2606 Page 10
Application No. 08/017,568
adjacent the intermediate portion and preventing leaking of
cement therefrom during implantation of the prosthesis.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-12, and reply brief,
pp. 3-4) that the applied prior art does teach or suggest a
stem portion including means for force fit engaging a long
bone canal as recited in claims 1 and 3. We agree. The
corresponding structure, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6,
of the claimed "means for force fit engaging a long bone
canal" is disclosed (specification, p. 7) as being in the form
of flutes, spines, or both, for better initial fixation and
torsional stability. We have reviewed the applied prior art
(i.e., Hack, Huiskes, Feiler and Tornier) and fail to find
therein any teaching or suggestion of any structure that would
be equivalent to the claimed "means for force fit engaging a
long bone canal" (i.e., flutes, spines, or both
(specification, p. 7) as shown in Figures 1-3, 4, 5, 11 and 12
by element numbers 18, 118, 218, 418 and 518, respectively).
While the prosthesis of either Hack, Feiler or Tornier may
firmly engage the long bone canal due to complimentary
substantially oval cross-sections, it is our view that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007