Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 13 Application No. 08/089,854 that a skilled artisan would have had ample motivation to employ such pore sizes in Jones since Jones suggests using a net form for the prosthetic material for tissue ingrowth (column 2, lines 36-40 and Example 11). We agree. We are not convinced by appellants' additional arguments3 of a lack of a reasonable expectation of success in using pore sizes as claimed in Jones from the combined teachings of Jones and Spector. In this regard, for the reasons indicated supra regarding Jones, we do not share appellants' viewpoint regarding the incompatibility of the references' teachings based on the prosthetics of Jones being allegedly only useful for soft tissue applications and the teachings of Spector being only applicable to hard tissue prosthetics as well as their different material compositions. The claimed prosthetic at issue herein is not limited to bone binding applications and the prosthetics of Jones would not have been viewed by a skilled artisan as being limited to soft tissue applications for reasons as generally discussed above. See American Standard, supra. Moreover, appellants have not substantiated their argument with objective tests showing 3The arguments and evidence advanced above regarding the rejections of claims 13-19 and 68-106 under 35 U.S.C. �� 102/103 over Jones are not found convincing with respect to the � 103 rejection of claim 107 for the reasons set forth above.Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007