Appeal No. 2006-3075 Page 4
Application No. 10/313,205
know as Tecotex® . . . which produces a surface roughness Rmax of about 0.4
mm or greater.”1 Id. See also, Final Rejection, page 3. Examiner recognizes,
however, that “Amrich does not teach the step of oxidizing at least a portion of
the surface of the metallic substrate.” Examiner relies on Hunter to make up for
the deficiency in Amrich. Id. (emphasis added).
Examiner finds “Hunter teaches that it is advantageous to oxidize at least
a portion of the surface of a metallic implant substrate such as zirconium on
which an altered surface roughness is formed.” Answer, page 4 (emphasis
added). Hunter teaches that one “aspect of the present invention is to provide
[(1)] a low friction, wear resistant oxide coating of uniform thickness on prosthesis
surfaces, such as articulating surfaces and [(2)] irregular surface structures
adapted to accommodate tissue ingrowth on a portion of the prosthesis body.”
Hunter, page 5, lines 21-24.2
Based on this evidence, we find that it would have been prima facie
obvious to modify Amrich’s method with the teachings Hunter to include a
method whereby a part of the metallic prosthetic substrate is oxidized to provide
a low friction, wear resistant oxide coating of uniform thickness on prosthesis
surfaces, such as articulating surfaces.
Hunter teaches a metallic substrate (e.g., a hip prosthesis) that has two
different surfaces: (1) a low friction, wear resistant oxide coating of uniform
1 Examiner directs attention to paragraph 82 of Appellants’ specification which confirms this
finding. Answer, page 3. Appellants do not dispute this finding. Accordingly, we find that
Appellants concede this fact.
2 Examiner misquotes this section of Hunter at page 4 of the Answer. Appellants correctly
reproduce this section of Hunter in the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of their Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013