Appeal No. 2006-1891 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/874,218
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.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 as being
anticipated by Gresser. We initially note that to support a rejection of a claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner finds:
Gresser et al. discloses in Figures 4a-4b and paragraphs 8-10, 33, 38, 47,
and 71-72 a resorbable tissue scaffold implant comprising a foam tissue
scaffold component partially encapsulating a fixation component
comprising threads 41 serving as anchors. Pores or through holes (43-46)
fulfill the open-cell pore structure. Hydroxyapatite is described in
paragraph 47 as a reinforcement component [answer at page 3].
We agree with the examiner and thus we will sustain this rejection.
Appellants argue that Gresser does not describe an implant device that
comprises a foam tissue scaffold that partially encapsulates a fixation component. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007