Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
The § 103 rejection of claims 38-42 as being unpatentable over
Goble in view of Moumene
Claims 38-42 depend either directly or indirectly from
independent claim 26. Claims 38 and 39 further require that the
intramedullary implant of claim 26 comprises a polymer having an
elastic modulus approximating the elastic modulus of bone, and
claims 40-42 further define the polymer. The examiner’s reliance
on Moumene for its teaching of the details of the polymer
material set forth in claims 38-42 is well taken. However,
Moumene does not cure the deficiencies of Goble concerning the
fluted connector feature of claim 26. Hence, the standing
rejection of claims 38-42 as being unpatentable over Goble in
view of Moumene also is not sustainable.
The § 103 rejection of claims 18-23 as being unpatentable over
Goble in view of Moumene and Bokros
We take up next for consideration the rejection of claims
18, 19 and 20. Claim 19 is a multiple dependent claim that
depends from independent claims 11, 43 or 44. As noted earlier,
appellants expressly state (main brief, page 5) that the claims
grouped under each rejection stand or fall together. Therefore,
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007