Appeal No. 1997-0975 Page 6
Application No. 08/389,303
From the above, we determine that either "bone," as used in
the appealed claims, includes collagenous body tissues or the
claimed bone contacting includes indirect contact with bone via
ligament and/or other body tissues. Note also that the claimed
limitation "... to bind the prosthetic device to bone by contact
between said prosthetic device and bone" (claim 54) does not call
for a particular type of bond or direct bone contact such that
the claimed method would have excluded, for example, the nose
implant use taught by Jones.
With regard to the § 103 rejection, we agree with the
examiner that the teachings of Jones regarding the use of the
implant for bonding to collagenous body tissue would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the use
of the prosthetic devices for bonding to bone. Jones broadly
teaches the prosthetic material for use in an animal body, which
is inclusive of bone contacting uses. Jones further teaches the
prosthetic materials may be cast or compression molded (column 6)
indicating the prosthetic would have structural rigidity in
addition to bicompatible properties. Thus, a skilled artisan
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the
device for hard body (bone) implant utilities. Compare American
Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 722 F. Supp. 86, 131, 14 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007