Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
held to be obvious matter of design choice within the skill in
the art where particular connection solves no stated problem).
Since the examiner has provided no factual basis for the
assertion that it would have been obvious to construct the
connector elements of Goble as fluted connectors, the standing
rejection of claim 26, as well as claims 27-33 that depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Goble cannot be sustained.
The § 103 rejection of claims 34-37 as being unpatentable over
Goble in view of Bokros
Claim 34 depends from claim 33 and adds that the
biocompatible material comprises a coil. Claims 35-37 depend
either directly or indirectly from claim 34 and further define
the coils. While the Bokros reference relied upon by the
examiner for this added feature certainly teaches that
biocompatible material of a bone implant may take the form of
coils, Bokros does not cure the deficiencies of Goble concerning
the fluted connector feature of claim 26 discussed above.
Therefore, the standing rejection of claims 34-37 as being
unpatentable over Goble in view of Bokros is not sustainable.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007