Appeal No. 2003-1395
Application No. 09/497,123
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Biedermann
The examiner finds that Biedermann discloses an end member
with a top surface “adopted and configured to engage bone” as
shown in Figure 3 since the end member has holes for tissue
ingrowth and permits bone to be “pushed into it.” Answer, page
4. The examiner further finds that Figure 6 of Biedermann
illustrates an end member having a flat planar surface, with two
sections 12 and 19 that can be construed as first and second
portions, with an integral shoulder that supports teeth 15 and
“is sized to rest on and [sic, an] edge of the implant.” Id.
The examiner further cites Figure 7 of Biedermann, interpreting
the figure as showing a first channel extending from the edge
such that it is formed between the teeth 15 that protrude outward
from the edge, said channel being capable of receiving a surgical
instrument. Id. We agree.
Appellants argue that the holes 14 in Biedermann are
circular in shape and are located on the interior of the plate,
spaced a distance from the edge of the top surface, and thus do
not form a channel or longitudinal groove for receiving a
surgical instrument. This argument is not well taken since the
examiner does not rely upon the holes 14 as forming a “channel”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007