Ex parte KUSLICH et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-2808                                                        
          Application No. 08/733,464                                                  


               The full text of the examiner's rejection and the                      
          responses to the arguments presented by appellants appear in                
          the final rejection (Paper No. 15) and the answer (Paper No.                
          22) while the complete statement of appellants’ arguments can               
          be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 20 and 26,                
          respectively).                                                              




          OPINION                                                                     
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and the              
          claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the                      
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we conclude that                 
          the                                                                         
           103 rejection cannot be sustained.                                        
               Claim 7, the only independent claim before us for review,              
          calls for an implant comprising, inter alia, a rigid body                   
          having a longitudinal axis and a generally continuous helical               
          thread pattern disposed substantially entirely throughout an                


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007