Appeal No. 97-2783
Application 08/388,089
longevity of the hip arthroplasty. Thus, the intent of Serbousek
is actually to allow more stress loading of the bone and prevent
"stress shielding" caused by rigid femoral implants of the prior
art. Serbousek never mentions an acetabular cup prosthesis, or
the sizing and radial stiffness of such components.
Since we are of the view that the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness with regard to claim 12 on appeal is based on a
hindsight reconstruction using appellants' own disclosure as a
blueprint to arrive at the claimed subject matter, it follows
that we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Morscher and Serbousek.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 4 through 11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Morscher has been reversed; the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Frey '355 has been affirmed; and
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Morscher in view of Serbousek has been
reversed.
The decision of the examiner is accordingly affirmed-in-
part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007