Appeal No. 2003-1732 Page 5
Application No. 09/646,703
A comparison of the structure recited in claim 1 and that of Doerre reveals that
Doerre fails to disclose or teach that the second (the ceramic) component
is provided with a coating made from a biocompatible metal or
biocompatible metal alloy on the clamp surface, the coating having a
rough surface in which a peak to valley height is sufficient to produce the
press-fit connection upon press-fitting the first component and the second
component.3
Recognizing this difference, the examiner has taken the position it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the coating from the first component
and place it on the second component “since it has been held that a mere reversal of
the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art” (Answer,
page 3). We do not agree, for the following reasons.
Doerre seeks to avoid the problem of damage occurring in the ceramic second
component is made after the metallic first component is press fit therein, and does so
by providing the metallic first component with (1) a taper that is smaller than that of the
ceramic second component, and (2) with a surface that has a lesser resistance to
deformation than the metallic core (column 1). According to Doerre, this “ensures that
the contact point of the female part always starts at the tapering end and, on any plastic
deformation of the surface of the male part, progresses step-by-step towards the wider
open sections of the joint parts,” which prevents a premature contact at the wide ends
of the two parts that could cause the joint head to break because of the relatively long
3The same limitation exists in independent claim 8, expressed in terms of a method step.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007