Appeal No. 2003-1732 Page 3
Application No. 09/646,703
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Independent apparatus claim 1 recites a joint prosthesis in which there is a first
component comprising a metallic material to be anchored in a bone and a second
component comprising a ceramic material or a biocompatible plastics material. The
second component has a clamp surface to be press-fit to the first component, and the
clamp surface is provided with a coating made from biocompatible metal or metal alloy
and has a rough surface with a peak to valley height sufficient to produce a press-fit
connection upon press-fitting the first component and the second component.
Independent method claim 8 contains the same limitations.
The examiner is of the opinion that the subject matter recited in the claims
would have been obvious in view of Doerre. We do not agree, and we therefore will not
sustain the rejection. Our reasoning in arriving at this conclusion is as follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007