Appeal No. 2003-1513
Application No. 09/326,412
to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellant had
possession of a preferred preventing means in which the base is
“thicker or reinforced” relative to the anterior portion.
Appealed claim 22 merely limits the “preventing means” to
comprise a “posterior portion which is thicker than the anterior
portion.” Thus we see no basis for alleging that appealed claim
22 lacks adequate written description.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold the examiner’s
rejection on this ground.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We are in complete agreement with the examiner’s findings
and conclusions, so we adopt them as our own.
The appellant argues: “Baker describes a mammary implant
(not a tissue expander) and makes no mention of a tissue
expander anywhere in the patent.” (Supplemental appeal brief,
page 3.) This argument lacks merit. Boyd, the principal prior
art reference, teaches: “[T]here have been numerous attempts to
provide volume-adjustable, anatomically-shaped mammary implants,
including tissue-expander devices.” (Column 2, lines 59-62;
emphasis added.) Because a tissue expander is an anatomically
shaped mammary implant, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found the requisite motivation or suggestion to combine the
teachings of Boyd and Baker.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007