Appeal No. 1998-2827
Application 08/614,494
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter sought to be patented.
The use of the terminology “being a cylinder” in claim 9
to describe appellant’s implant is misdescriptive, inaccurate,
and confusing for the reasons noted supra.
Summary
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being anticipated by
Sparkes is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Dury in view of Sparkes, and the rejection of claims 12
and 13 as being unpatentable over Dury in view of Sparkes and
further in view of Niznick, are reversed.
A new ground of rejection of claims 9-13 pursuant to 37
CFR § 1.196(b) has been made.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective
Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131,
53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office
63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007