Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 14
Application No. 08/089,854
such incompatibility based on differences in prosthetic
composition or potential uses thereof.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner's legal conclusion
that the subject matter defined by claim 107 would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 from the combined
teachings of Jones and Spector.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
71-106 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicants regard as their
invention is reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject
claims 13-19 and 68-106 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Jones or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jones and to reject claim 107 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Spector is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007