Appeal No. 1998-0169
Application 08/542,603
apparent that this is the case, we are
constrained to hold that the examiner has not satisfied his
burden of establishing that Abbate discloses each and every
feature of the claimed subject matter either expressly or
inherently. For this reason, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 36.
Likewise, with respect to claim 3 rejected under the
provision of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner has not established
that the combination of references of Abbate and Steffee would
have disclosed the structure of a bone implant or a plate that
could inherently have functioned as a bone implant.
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
claim 3 on obviousness grounds.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007