Appeal No. 1999-0925
Application No. 08/735,916
The claims on appeal are drawn to an implant apparatus,
and are reproduced in Appendix A of appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Walker 3,774,244 Nov. 27,
1973
Hodorek 4,979,957 Dec. 25,
1990
Mikhail 5,383,937 Jan. 24,
1995
(filed Feb. 26, 1993)
The claims stand finally rejected on the following
grounds:
(1) Claims 28 to 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38 to 40, unpatentable
for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
(2) Claims 28 to 31, 33, 35, 39 and 40, anticipated by Mikhail
or Hodorek, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(3) Claims 36 and 38, anticipated by Walker, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Rejection (1)
The examiner asserts that the rejected claims are
indefinite because (answer, pages 4 and 5):
These claims are directed to an apparatus
which comprise [sic] the combination of an
implant and a plurality of spaced apart cement
bodies. Examiner maintained that the apparatus
as claimed does not exist except in vivo. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007