Appeal No. 1998-2827
Application 08/614,494
examiner, the rejection is not sustainable. Simply stated, we
see no suggestion in the combined teachings of the applied
references for modifying Dury in a manner that would result in
“a threaded section having at least one helical channel
encircling the threaded section,” as called for in claim 9.
First, notwithstanding the examiner’s view to the contrary, it
is not apparent to us that the groove 17 of Dury is a helical
groove. Based on Dury’s specification (column 5, lines 43-47)
and drawings, it appears just as likely that groove 17 is a
straight groove. Second, we see no teaching in Sparkes for
modifying Dury’s groove so that it encircles the threaded
section. This would require changing the pitch of the groove
taught by Sparkes in opposition to the clear teaching of
Sparkes at column 2, lines 22-29 to the contrary. It is error
to disregard disclosures in the references that diverge from
and teach away from the invention at hand. W. L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220
USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Third, it appears likely to
us that modifying Dury’s groove 17 so that it encircles the
threaded section would render Dury’s implant, at best,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007