Appeal No. 1999-0925
Application No. 08/735,916
have to be. Rather, the claims recite a plurality of bodies
of cement each of which has an end portion with "surface means
for engaging one of the recesses in the bone," or "for
engagement with a recess [or cylindrical recess] in the bone
in the patient’s body"; they do not claim the bone per se as
an element of the apparatus.
The examiner also considers claim 30 to be indefinite
because it does not further limit the apparatus. However,
claim 30 is more specific than claim 28, from which it
ultimately depends, since it recites that the recesses in the
implant and the bone have the same configuration, whereas
parent claim 28 only recites that they have configurations
which correspond. Therefore, we consider that claim 30 does
further limit its parent claim(s), as required by § 112,
fourth paragraph, and is not indefinite.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
In view of his position with respect to the § 112
rejection, supra, the examiner states that he "has interpreted
the ’apparatus’ limitation as being directed to an implant and
a cement source" (answer, pages 9, 10 and 11 ). Consequently,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007