Appeal 2006-2283
Application 10/375,343
modifies “porous structure” by requiring that the structure is or looks the
same in all parts (David B. Guralnik, Webster's New World Dictionary 1551
(2nd Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984)) in the sense that no part
thereof is non-porous.
Kawahara’s laminated body is porous throughout. We therefore
conclude that Kawahara’s laminated body is a “completely uniform porous
structure,” as recited in claim 1, and a “completely uniform porous structure
throughout,” as recited in claims 7 and 16. We likewise conclude that
Kawahara’s laminated body is “entirely porous from the proximal to distal
ends,” as recited in dependent claim 15 and satisfies the limitation “wherein
the entire bone fixation body is porous” in dependent claim 2. As the claims
do not require any particular shape or cross section or exclude a hollow
structure, we further conclude that Kawahara’s laminated body “has a cross
section formed entirely of the porous structure,” as recited in dependent
claim 17. Appellant’s arguments thus fail to demonstrate the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-18 as unpatentable over Kawahara
in view of Sutter. The rejection is sustained as to these claims.
Appellant argues that neither Kawahara nor Sutter teaches a coronal
body having a triangular shape, as recited in claim 3 (Br. 14). The Examiner
does not address this limitation of claim 3 in the rejection based on
Kawahara in view of Sutter. To the extent that the Examiner is relying on
Sutter for a suggestion of this feature (Answer 4), the Examiner has not
coherently demonstrated that Sutter teaches or suggests such, as discussed
above with respect to the rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Sutter.
Accordingly, Appellant has successfully demonstrated that the Examiner
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013