Appeal No. 2002-2187
Application 09/149,359
(answer, pages 10 and 11) finds no factual support in the fair
teachings of Blom.
As for the prior art rejections of claims 7 through 9 based
on Blom, notwithstanding the examiner’s apparent finding to the
contrary (see pages 7, 12 and 13 in the answer), a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably view the diamond
shape end 404 extending from Blom’s surgical implant 400 as
constituting flange “provided on an outside surface of the device
body” and having “a continuous radially-extending surface which
extends radially outward from the body to a radial outer edge of
the flange” as recited in independent claim 7, or as being
suggestive of such. Although the diamond shaped end 404 embodies
a flange, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view
its wire like construction extending from the end of the implant
as being on the outside surface of the implant or device body or
as defining a continuous radially-extending surface which extends
radially outward from the body to a radial outer edge of the
flange.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 17 and 18 based on
Shikani, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17
through 19 based on Blom, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007