Appeal No. 97-2783
Application 08/388,089
as required in appellants' claim 12 on appeal. Based on
appellants' disclosure (specification, page 8), we understand
that it is appellants' intent to "equalize" the stiffness between
the two acetabular cups (10) and (42) in a radial direction, and
we understand the language of Claim 12 on appeal to mean that
such radial stiffness of the two recited cups will be equal, at
least to the extent that manufacturing tolerances will allow.
The examiner's position that Serbousek "teaches making
femoral implants of varying sizes with a stiffness equivalent to
bone to reduce stress despite the length or diameter" (answer,
page 4), is without clear support in the reference. As is
explained in column 3, lines 25-31, of Serbousek, the dimensions
of the groove (46) in the stem of the femoral implant
are chosen so as to obtain a predetermined stiffness
profile of the stem between the proximal and distal
ends. In either event, the stem has a magnitude of
stiffness no greater than that at which stress
shielding of the first bone has been clinically
identified by radiographic methods.
Moreover, at lines 44-48, of column 3 in Serbousek, it is noted
that by reducing the stiffness of the femoral implant, "more load
is borne by the surrounding bone," which, in turn, will reduce
bone mineral loss caused by stress shielding and promote the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007