Appeal No. 2006-3075 Page 2
Application No. 10/313,205
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Amrich et al. (Amrich) 6,599,322 Jul. 29, 2003
Hunter et al. (Hunter) WO 98/42390 Oct. 1, 1998
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1-9, 14, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Amrich and Hunter.
We affirm. However, since our reasoning differs from that of Examiner we
designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection.
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant does not separately argue or group the claims. Accordingly, the
claims will stand or fall together. Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit
our discussion to representative claim 1. Claims 2-9, 14, 17 and 18 will stand or
fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (July 2005).
DISCUSSION
Background:
According to appellants’ specification (paragraph 2), the “invention relates
generally to the field of orthopedic implants.” For example, the invention relates
to a prosthesis “wherein at least a portion of the prosthesis body has a texture-
modified surface, and wherein at least a portion of the surface of the prosthesis
body comprises a diffusion hardened oxidation layer.” Specification, paragraph
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013