Appeal No. 2000-1120
Application 09/095,205
cement mixing apparatus" or "a method of mixing bone cement", and
that this recital serves to define the structure of the claimed
invention (brief, page 13).
We find that the phrase “a bone cement mixing apparatus”
recited in claim 14 and the phrase “a method of mixing bone
cement comprising” recited in claim 23 is satisfied by Chan or
Gunnarsson or Lidgren. That is, each of these references is
directed to mixing bone cement.
Appellants also argue that Blasnik is nonanalogous art with
respect to Chan, Gunnarsson, and Lidgren. (brief, pages 14-15).
Appellants further argue that the examiner’s reasoning for
combining the references does not reach the legally established
threshold level of a convincing line of reasoning. (brief, pages
16-19). Appellants also argue that there is no suggestion within
the references for the combination, and that the cited references
teach away from combining with each other. (brief, pages 20-22).
Appellants argue that there is no reasonable expectation of
success for the examiner’s combination of references and that the
combination would render the reference being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (brief, pages 22-25).
Appellants finally argue that the examiner’s combination changes
the principles of operation of the references being modified.
(brief, pages 25-26).
In response to the aforementioned arguments presented by
appellants, we incorporate herein the examiner’s comments
beginning on page 17 of the answer through page 20. We add the
following additional comments for emphasis.
We recognize that each of the primary references of Chan,
Chan, or Gunnarsson, or Lidgren each set forth a bone cement
mixing apparatus comprising the claimed components of appellants’
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007