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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007