Ex Parte TOWNLEY - Page 2




                Appeal No. 2002-2198                                                                                 Page 2                    
                Application No. 09/408,409                                                                                                     


                                                             BACKGROUND                                                                        
                         The appellant's invention relates to a prosthetic joint implant having a tissue-                                      
                integratable rough surface and as a special example a porous coating on a surface                                              
                other than that which may be commonly provided for the intramedullary prosthetic-bone                                          
                interface (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the                                        
                appendix to the appellant's brief.                                                                                             


                         Claims 2 to 14 and 19 to 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                                          
                anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,702,483 to Kwong.                                                                             


                         Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                         
                the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                                             
                (Paper No. 22, mailed April 12, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support                                         
                of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 21, filed March 15, 2002) and reply brief                                        
                (Paper No. 23, filed May 20, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                 


                                                                 OPINION                                                                       
                         In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                       
                the appellant's specification and claims, to the Kwong patent, and to the respective                                           
                positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                                              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007