Appeal No. 1999-0925
Application No. 08/735,916
(recesses 22) would not correspond, to form a plurality of
bodies of cement as claimed. Since neither Mikhail or Hodorek
discloses all the limitations of the rejected claims,
expressly or inherently, they do not anticipate.
Rejection (2) will not be sustained.
Rejection (3)
Walker discloses an implant 50 which is cemented to a
bone 15 and has recesses 58, 59 in its lower surface. Also,
in the bone surface facing the implant are cement-filled holes
(recesses) 60.
Considering Walker’s disclosure in relation to
independent claim 36, the two recesses (grooves) 59 in
Walker’s implant 50 may be said to be "spaced apart" as
recited, and the cement bodies in recesses (holes) 60 in the
bone may be said to have "a first end portion with surface
means for engaging one of the recesses in the bone" and "a
second end portion disposed in one of said recesses of said
plurality of recesses in said implant," as claimed.
Nevertheless, we do not consider that Walker anticipates claim
36 because in Walker the bodies of cement are not "spaced
apart bodies of cement," as required by the claim, but rather
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007