Appeal No. 2000-0198 Page 6
Application No. 08/400,178
additional stem portions which are attached by means of an elongated screw. The
prosthesis is to be “custom fitted to a particular patient . . . prior to surgical insertion”
(column 3, lines 31 and 32), which indicates that it is not intended to be modified after it is
implanted in the medullary canal. Considered in the most charitable light, it is our view that
the screw attachment means cannot be considered to be a “quick release interlock
means” in the manner established in the appellant’s specification, even though it allows
separation and connection in a direction along the longitudinal axis of the stem
components.
Installation and separation along the longitudinal axis also is a feature of the
Schelhas device. In this arrangement, the components are attached together prior to
implanting by means of a sleeve connection that is neither quick-release nor capable of
being operated while the stem portions are installed in the medullary canal.
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
case, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Kenna system in the
manner proposed by the examiner, for none of the references teach that the trial head
component and the stem component can be separated while the stem component remains
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007