Appeal No. 2005-1675 Page 13
Application No. 09/523,503
Accordingly, such a structure cannot possibly contact either the
non-prominent condyle or trochlear region.
The examiner's response to this argument (answer, pp. 4-5) is as follows:
In response to applicant's argument that White' s guide 91 "has nothing to
do with measuring the distal extent of either condyle or the trochlear region.'' (see
page 5, lines 14-16 of applicant's Brief), the limitations on which the Applicant
relies are not stated in the claims. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the reference
includes those features or not.
ln response to applicant's argument that White discloses a guide 91 which
cannot possibly contact the non-prominent condyle or trochlear region, it is noted
that White disclose a fixture (see Figure 1), i.e. 11, which includes a movable
member and cutting guide 113. The fixture clearly is mount[ed] or installed onto a
distal femur (see Figures 11-18) and the fixture refers to or indicate the condyles
at the end of the femur. Moreover, Figure 17 shows the fixture touching the
non-prominent condyle region 29.
In our view, the method steps of claim 8 are readable on White as follows:
(1) installing a fixture onto the distal femur which references the non-prominent condyle
or trochlear region (as shown in Figure 11, the anterior feeler gauge 91 (i.e., fixture) is
installed onto the distal femur and references the anterior aspect or surface 23 of the
distal femur 13 which inherently also references the non-prominent condyle or trochlear
region); and
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007