Ex parte CHAN - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-2327                                                        
          Application No. 08/467,619                                                  


                    said second chamber containing a second liquid                    
               component for said liquid bone cement, said second liquid              
               component comprising a liquid alkyl methacrylate, an                   
               activator, and a stabilizer for preventing spontaneous                 
               polymerization of the liquid alkyl methacrylate in said                
               second liquid component, the liquid alkyl methacrylate                 
               being present in said second liquid component in an                    
               amount which is at least sufficient to provide the second              
               liquid component as a liquid mixture, said second chamber              
               being at least substantially free of air.                              
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Yamauchi et al. (Yamauchi)      4,182,035           Jan.  8,                
          1980                                                                        
          Butler et al. (Butler)          4,383,826           May  17,                
          1983                                                                        
          Colin et al. (Colin)          5,033,650           Jul. 23,                  
                                        1991                                          
          Chan                          5,100,241           Mar. 31,                  
                                                            1992                      
               All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Butler,                   
          Yamauchi and Chan.                                                          
               We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete                 
          discussion of the respective viewpoints advocated by the                    
          appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-noted                    
          rejection.                                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the argument and evidence                 
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007