Appeal No. 2005-1675 Page 8
Application No. 09/523,503
In the Grouping of Claims section of the brief (p. 3), the appellant states "that all
of the rejected claims stand or fall with claim 8." Accordingly, claims 9 to 13, 15 and 16
fall with claim 8. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 to 13, 15 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Whiteside is also affirmed.
The anticipation rejection based on White
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 to 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by White.
White's invention relates, in general, to instrumentation for and a method of
sizing a distal femur and guiding a bone resection tool to make anterior and distal
femoral resections. Figure 1 is an exploded perspective view of the instrumentation of
the White's invention. Figure 11 is a somewhat diagrammatic lateral view of a distal
femur having an intramedullary rod implanted therein, combined with an instrument
body, a valgus module and an anterior feeler gauge of the instrumentation of the
White's invention. Figure 12 is a somewhat diagrammatic lateral view of a distal femur
having an intramedullary rod implanted therein, combined with an instrument body, a
valgus module and a resection guide of the instrumentation of the White's invention with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007