Ex Parte BAKKER et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-0975                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/389,303                                                  

          remaining claims pending in this application, stand objected to             
          as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (final rejection,             
          page 5).                                                                    
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a process for implanting              
          into an animal a prosthetic device for binding to bone.  An                 
          understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of             
          exemplary claim 54, which is reproduced below.                              
               54. A process for providing an animal with a prosthetic                
          device for binding to bone, comprising: implanting into an animal           
          a prosthetic device, said prosthetic device being implanted to              
          bind the prosthetic device to bone by contact between said                  
          prosthetic device and bone, said prosthetic device comprising a             
          polymer including a first component comprising a polyalkylene               
          glycol; and                                                                 
               a second hydrophobic component which imparts stability to              
          the first component in water.                                               
               The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the              
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Jones et al. (Jones)          3,908,201           Sep. 30, 1975             
               Claims 41-48 and 52-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102            
          as being anticipated by Jones or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C.            
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones.                                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               Having carefully reviewed the respective positions of                  
          appellants and the examiner, including the declaration evidence             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007