Appeal No. 1998-2813
Application No. 08/463,203
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 19, 31, 32/19
and 36/19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fink,
our reading of the Fink patent indicates that it is directed to
the fabrication of prosthetic implants to replace bone (i.e.,
medical devices) that are formed using various free-form
manufacturing techniques (col. 4, line 3, et. seq.) including
selective laser sintering and 3D-printing. These devices are
indicated (col. 5, lines 23-34) as being constructed to maximize
"the rate and quality of cell-mediated hard tissue healing" and
to "optimize the rate of healing by incorporating the patient's
own bone-producing cells into the implant" (emphasis added).
Fink notes (col. 3, line 7, et. seq.) that the most important
physical properties of the implant are the volume and size of the
pores within the implant, since such factors strongly influence
not only the strength of the implant but also the rate of
resorption and cellular colonization. In this regard, it is
indicated that pores of "at least" 200-300 micrometers in
diameter are necessary in osteoconductive materials to permit
ingrowth of vasculature and osteogenic cells. An example of an
implant material (col. 3, lines 23-25) is said to be composed of
a network of interconnecting pores in the range of approximately
200 µm diameter. While Fink generally discloses the use of
resorbable, biocompatible ceramic materials to construct the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007