Appeal No. 2002-0282
Application 09/363,407
Claim 11 is drawn to a humeral prosthesis set for the upper
extremity of the humerus, the set comprising, inter alia, a
plurality of single piece stems, with the bearing surface of each
stem being oriented at a tilt angle such that each tilt angle
differs from a tilt angle of the bearing surfaces of other stems
in the set, and a least one hemispherical cap.
We fully appreciate the examiner’s assessment of the overall
disclosure of the Tornier reference, and the reasoning leading to
the stated conclusion of obviousness, as set forth in the answer.
However, as we see it, the humeral prosthesis set of claim 11
would not have been suggested by the Tornier patent itself,
considered in its entirety. Clearly, the patentee Tornier
instructs those versed in the art to rely upon three elements of
a modular prosthesis (stem 1, spacer 2, and cap 3), with a
particular spacer being chosen from a series of spacers of
different slopes so that the inclination of the cap can be
adjusted according to a clinical case (column 3, lines 4 through
6 and lines 63 through 66). This, of course, is not appellants’
invention. On the other hand, like the examiner, we appreciate
from the Tornier disclosure that, prior to the patented
invention, those practicing the art also had available to them
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007