Appeal No. 2001-0515
Application 08/926,358
1. Claims 1, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lippincott.
2. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Rambert.
3. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Worland in view of Kinnett.
4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Worland
in view of Kinnett and Williamson.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 24) for a discussion of the
foregoing rejections.
To the extent that the language of claim 1 is understandable, we cannot sustain either of
the examiner’s § 102(b) rejections.8
With regard to the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 based on Lippincott, this
reference discloses a pair of components making up a joint prosthesis for replacing a joint in a
finger of a human hand. On the other hand, a “glenoid component,” as recited in the preamble
of claim 1, is a term of art (see, for example column 2, lines 6-19, of the cited Kinnett patent)
and refers to a prosthetic replacement for the glenoid cavity in the upper part of the human
scapula. The examiner dismisses this difference as being a statement of intended use.
Appellants argue on page 2 of the reply brief that the preamble of claim
8 See our new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as set forth infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007