Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
of using helical coil springs on the exterior surface of an
orthopedic implant to impart precisely controlled porosity to the
implant to promote the ingrowth of tissue and/or bone structure
thereby creating long-lasting joinder.
Because we find no error in the examiner’s rationale in
rejecting claim 11 as being obvious in view of Moumene and
Bokros, we shall sustain the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Further, in that appellants have directed that claims
11-17, 43 and 44 should stand or fall together, we shall also
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 12-17, 43 and 44 as
being unpatentable over Moumene and Bokros.
We simply do not agree with appellants’ argument (main
brief, page 6) that Bokros does not disclose partial embedding of
the coil springs. In our view, the disclosure of Bokros at
column 4, lines 9-12 that “the depth of the channels is
preferably near the loop diameter of the spring; however, in
specialized cases it may be appropriate to use a shallow groove
or even none at all” (emphasis added) would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art as teaching that the springs may be
partially embedded in the exterior surface of the implant.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007