Interference No. 103,570
spheroidal. We find this interpretation to be reasonably
consistent with the above-cited passage from the Hubbard
disclosure and, therefore, find that those of ordinary skill in
the art would accept it as an appropriate definition of the term
“substantially spherical” when read in light of the
specification.
Claim 21 also requires that the ceramic particles be
“substantially non-resorbable.” This term is defined in
Hubbard’s specification (page 11, ll. 3-7) as meaning that
“although some dissolution of the augmentation material may take
place over time, it is sufficiently slow so as to allow for
replacement with growing tissue cells.”
With the foregoing in mind, we find that the prior art
references relied upon by the APJ, either singly or in
combination, fail to render the subject matter of claim 21
obvious when taken in conjunction with Wallace claims 1-16 and
Hubbard claims 46-50.
The prior art references in question are Wallace Exhibits 4,
7, and 145 (HR-531, 542, 595 respectively), hereafter referred
5We note that the APJ in footnote 7 on page 13 of Paper No.
101 indicated that another prior art reference, Wallace Exhibit
6, “is viewed as cumulative and will not be discussed.”
Accordingly, we shall not address this reference in our decision.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007