Appeal No. 2002-2198 Page 7
Application No. 09/408,409
F.2d at 581, 212 USPQ at 326; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,
630, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under the principles of inherency, if the
prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
However, inherency is not necessarily coterminous with the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art. See Mehl/Biophile Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365,
52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Kwong does teach providing a non-bone-interfacing rough surface on the
top/obverse face of the collar/platform 62. Kwong does not specifically teach providing
a non-bone-interfacing rough surface on the peripheral side faces of the collar/platform
62 and such is not inherent in the teachings of Kwong. While Kwong does teach that
the surface treatments may be located anywhere on the acetabular and femoral
components as long as the fibrous capsule of tissue formed therebetween extends
within the preparation boundary between the implants and adjacent bone thereby
forming a sealed enclosure, Kwong does not teach that providing a non-bone-
interfacing rough surface on the peripheral side faces of the collar/platform would
permit a fibrous capsule of tissue to be formed between the acetabular and femoral
components with the fibrous capsule extending within the preparation boundary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007