Appeal No. 1999-0098
Application No. 08/328,443
We will first consider the rejection of independent
claims 1, 11 and 42, keeping in mind that in order for Tanguy
to anticipate these claims, it must disclose, expressly or
inherently, every limitation recited. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 1 and 11 call for a guide member "integrally
attached" within the intramedullary nail, and claim 42 for an
intramedullary nail with an "integrally attached" guide
member. Tanguy discloses an intramedullary nail 1 in which
the guide member 15 is held in position for drilling the
"adjacent cortical" (page 13, line 19) by the engagement of a
spring biased ball detent 20 in positioning hole 21 in the
wall of the nail. After the cortical is drilled, the guide is
removed, as shown in Figs. 4C and 4D. Appellant argues that
the guide member 15 is not "integrally attached" to the pin 1,
while the examiner, citing two cases concerning the definition
of "integral," asserts that it is.4
4 In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 960 n.4, 157 USPQ 275, 276
n.4 (CCPA 1968); In re Dike, 394 F.2d 584, 590 n.5, 157 USPQ
581, 585 n.5 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007