Ex Parte Hunter et al - Page 6


                Appeal No.  2006-3075                                                       Page 6                 
                Application No.  10/313,205                                                                        
                       Appellants arguments fail to account for the language in claim 1 that “at                   
                least a portion of” the substrate’s surface is oxidized and “at least a portion of”                
                the substrate’s surface is modified in roughness.  Instead, Appellants arguments                   
                focus on the prior art’s failure to teach the oxidation of a substrate that has a                  
                roughness Rmax of about 0.4 mm or greater.  However, neither Amrich, Hunter                        
                nor Appellants’ claims requires that the entire surface of the substrate, or that the              
                roughened surfaces of the substrate be oxidized.7  Therefore, we are not                           
                persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.                                                                
                       For the same reasons we are not persuaded by the two Heuer                                  
                Declarations8, the TWC publication9 or Watson  10 which are relied upon by                         
                Appellants to support the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would                
                not use Amrich’s method to prepare a surface to be oxidized according to Hunter.                   
                See, e.g., Brief, bridging sentence, pages 11-12.  As discussed above, a person                    
                of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the combined teachings of Amrich                 
                and Hunter that at least one part of the metallic substrate is treated according to                
                the method of Amrich to allow ingrowth of bone into the substrate, and at least                    
                another part is treated according to the method of Hunter to provide a low friction,               
                wear resistant oxide coating of uniform thickness for articulating surfaces.                       
                                                                                                                   
                7 We recognize that Hunter teaches the porous bead or wire mesh surface on Hunter’s metallic       
                substrate “can be treated simultaneously by the oxidation of the base prosthesis for the           
                elimination or reduction of metal ion release.”  However, we find no requirement in Hunter that    
                these surfaces must be simultaneously oxidized with the articulating region of the prosthesis, or  
                that oxidization is necessary for the irregular surface structures produced by Amrich’s method.    
                8 See Heuer Declaration (First Declaration), executed February 8, 2005; and Heuer Declaration      
                (Second Declaration), executed July 25, 2005.                                                      
                9 TWC, Vol. 12, No. 7 (1996).                                                                      
                10 Watson et al. (Watson)   3,615,885   Oct. 26, 1971                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013