Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
In light of the above, Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 7, and 16, or dependent
claims 5, 8, 11, and 12, which Appellant has not argued separately apart
from the independent claims, as anticipated by Sutter. The rejection is
therefore sustained as to these claims.
Appellant argues that Sutter’s base is solid metal with some large
holes and that, accordingly, part of the base is solid metal and part of the
base is holes. Consequently, according to Appellant, Sutter does not meet
the limitation “wherein the entire bone fixation body is porous” of claim 2
(Br. 9). Likewise, Appellant argues, Sutter’s base is not “entirely porous
from the proximal to distal ends,” as called for in claim 15, and lacks “a
cross section formed entirely of the porous structure,” as called for in claim
17 (Br. 9-10). Appellant’s porous structure could be described in the same
way. Specifically, part of Appellant’s bone fixation body (the material
between the pores) is solid metal and part of the bone fixation body is pores.
As discussed above, the through holes 73e are uniformly dispersed over the
entirety of Sutter’s base. Sutter therefore meets the limitations of claims 2,
15, and 17. The rejection is sustained as to claims 2, 15, and 17, as well as
to claim 18 which depends from claim 17 and has not been separately argued
by Appellant.
Claim 3 recites that the coronal body has a triangular shape.
Appellant argues that Sutter does not teach a triangular shape (Br. 9). While
we see a frustoconical portion on the denture supporting portion of Sutter’s
implant, we do not find a coronal body having a triangular shape. The
Examiner’s response that “the coronal body has a triangular shape when
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013