Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
Kawahara in view of Sutter, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 15-19 as unpatentable
over Small in view of Sutter, and claim 20 as unpatentable over Otani in
view of Wagner.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed March 27, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments
in the Brief (filed February 21, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed April 21, 2006).
THE ISSUES
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the structures of Sutter,
Otani, Kawahara, and Small that form the bone fixation body of the implant
are bone fixation bodies formed of “a completely uniform porous structure,”
as recited in claim 1, and formed of “a completely uniform porous structure
throughout the entire bone fixation body,” as recited in claims 7 and 16.
Secondary but closely related issues in this appeal are whether the
structures of the applied references forming the bone fixation body satisfy
the similar limitations in claim 2 that the “entire bone fixation body is
porous,” in claim 15 that the bone fixation body is “entirely porous from the
proximal to distal ends,” and in claim 17 that the bone fixation body “has a
cross section formed entirely of the porous structure.”
Another issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has shown that
Sutter, Kawahara and Small teach or would have suggested an implant
comprising a coronal body having a triangular shape, as recited in claim 3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013