Appeal No. 1998-2827
Application 08/614,494
(corrected brief, page 9). Consequently, appellant concludes
that Sparkes does not anticipate appellant’s invention.
When considered in light of our above interpretation of
the term “cylinder” as used herein, it is clear that
appellant’s argument is to no avail in convincing us that the
examiner erred in rejections claims 9 and 10 as being
anticipated by Sparkes. As we see it, the wood screw of
Sparkes is just as much a “cylinder” as is appellant’s Figure
5 implant device. Accordingly, we will sustain the standing §
102 rejection of claim 9, as well as claim 10 which has not
been separately argued apart from claim 9.
The Obviousness Rejections
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 11 as
being unpatentable over Dury in view of Sparkes, appellant
argues as a threshold issue (corrected brief, pages 9-11) that
Sparkes is not analogous art with respect to the claimed
invention. However, even if we assume for the sake of
argument that Sparkes is analogous art as urged by the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007