Appeal No. 1999-0226 Page 3
Application No. 08/447,217
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to medical prostheses,
particularly those medical prostheses used for a breast or
testicular prosthesis (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the2
appellants' reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 14, 1998).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Cohen 4,143,428 Mar. 13, 1979
Schäpel 4,404,296 Sep. 13, 1983
Van Aken Redinger et al. 4,455,691 June 26, 1984
(Van Aken Redinger)
Peterson 5,246,454 Sep. 21, 1993
Tautvydas et al. 5,407,445 Apr. 18, 1995
(Tautvydas)
Scopelianos et al. 5,411,554 May 2, 1995
(Scopelianos)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16 stand rejected under
2Dependent claims 10 to 15 each recite "[t]he prosthesis
of claim 9." Independent claim 9 does not recite a prothesis.
Instead claim 9 recites "[a] sealed compliant water
impermeable envelope or capsule which is filled with an
aqueous solution of polyethylene glycol." The appellants
should correct this discrepancy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007