Appeal No. 1999-0242
Application 08/643,829
In addition to not disclosing a prosthesis meeting the
flat mating surface limitations in claim 28, Sackett would not
have suggested same to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of
claim 29, which depends from claim 28, as being unpatentable
over Sackett.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007