Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
In the final analysis, we find that the examiner’s assertion
that the applied patent “inherently discloses every functional
limitation recited in the claims” is without foundation in the
applied reference and that the examiner has not otherwise
established that the natural result flowing from following the
teachings of the Johnson patent would be an apparatus like that
claimed by appellant and which is capable of functioning in the
manner defined in appellant’s claims 4 and 15 through 17 on
appeal. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Johnson.
The last of the examiner’s rejections on appeal is of claims
6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Johnson. In this instance,
appellant has not taken issue with the examiner’s use of official
notice and assertion of obviousness in concluding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
interchangeably use either hook or loop material on one or the
other of the members (4) and (10) of Johnson for securing the
members together as provided for in that reference. Instead,
appellant’s argument centers on the preamble language relating to
arthroscopic examination and an assertion that Johnson provides
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007