Appeal No. 97-2783
Application 08/388,089
observe that appellants have provided no convincing line of
argument or evidence to the contrary.
Since in the present case, all the limitations of
appellants' independent claims 1 and 13 are found in Frey '355,
either expressly or under principles of inherency, the examiner's
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will be
sustained. Given appellants' statement in the "GROUPING OF
CLAIMS" on page 3 of the brief, that "Claims 1-11 and 15 should
be grouped together as Group I," it follows that claims 4 through
11 and 15 on appeal will fall with claim 1.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is that
of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Morscher and Serbousek. Like appellants',
we find no reasonable teaching, suggestion, or incentive in the
applied references which would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to make a first and second acetabular cup prosthesis
wherein the first and second cups have a different outside
diameter at a rim thereof, and with
at least one of said backing thickness and said
penetration depth varying between said first acetabular
cup and said second acetabular cup, whereby each of
said first acetabular cup and said second acetabular
cup have substantially the same stiffness in a radial
direction,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007