Appeal No. 1997-0975 Page 7
Application No. 08/389,303
1673, 1710 (D. Del., 1989) wherein the court found that, as early
as 1968-1969, "...the field of biomaterials crossed the
orthopedic, dental and cardiovascular specialties, and (2) it was
well known at the critical time that soft and bone tissue would
grow into pores."
In view of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of the claimed subject matter over the teachings of Jones.
Appellants’ contentions regarding Jones only teaching a soft
tissue prosthesis utility and not the claimed bone bonding (hard
tissue) method are not found convincing in light of our
construction of appellants' claimed implanting step as being
inclusive of the nose implant method taught by Jones. We note
that the appealed claims do not require a direct bond between the
implant device and hydroxyapatite phase of bone as argued as a
distinguishing feature (brief, page 4). See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1351, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
Moreover, we do not find the declaration of Klaas de Groot
convincing on the ultimate issue of anticipation or obviousness.
In this regard, we note that the declaration attempts to
differentiate appellants' invention from the prior art based on a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007