Appeal No. 2000-0198 Page 2
Application No. 08/400,178
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to modular trial instrumentation for determining the
dimensions of a replacement prosthesis. The claims on appeal have been reproduced in
an appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Demane et al. (Demane) 4,995,883 Feb. 26, 1991
Schelhas et al. (Schelhas) 5,032,130 Jul. 16, 1991
Kenna 5,108,437 Apr. 28, 1992
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kenna in view of Demane and Schelhas.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 31) and the final rejection (Paper No. 25) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Brief (Paper No. 28) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007