Appeal No. 1999-0117
Application 08/702,948
artisan would use such knowledge to interpret appellant’s
disclosure, and what the ordinarily skilled artisan would
consider a “reasonable variations” of the embodiments illustrated
in the Figures 6 and 7 embodiments. For example, appellant lists
on page 3 of the request several U.S. Patents, presumably for the
proposition that they demonstrate “the skilled-in-the-art
person’s knowledge of patented implants having flat distal ends
that permitted easy entry of the implants into holes.”2 It is
not apparent to us that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood these patents as teaching that flat distal ends
permit easy entry of implants into holes. In any event, even
assuming that these patents establish this concept as being
generally within the skill in the art, appellant has not
persuasively argued why the artisan would have presumed said
concept to be part of appellant’s invention in the present
application. This is especially so in that appellant appears to
teach the opposite, namely, that the distal end of the implant
should be tapered. From our perspective, appellant appears to
ask us to presume as an article of faith that one of ordinary
2 To the extent these patents are cited for this purpose,
this is a new point of argument made for the first time in this
request, and is therefore untimely.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007