Appeal 2007-1432
Application 09/141,186
Patent 5,549,673
12. The restriction requirement indicated that original application
08/118,097 contained four independent and distinct inventions as follows:
I. Claims 20-28 drawn to a prosthesis;
II. Claims 1-4 and [6]-11 drawn to a implants;3
III. Claims 13-16 and 18-19 drawn to a system of implantation;
and
IV. Claim 17 drawn to a method of sizing and implanting a
prosthesis.
13. On April 22, 1994, Appellant elected with traverse to prosecute
the invention of Group III, claims 13-16 and 18-19.
14. On August 5, 1994, the Examiner entered a Non-Final Office
Action (“Non-Final Action”).
15. The Non-Final Action responded to Appellant’s traversal of the
restriction requirement. The restriction was (1) deemed proper,
(2) maintained, and (3) made final.
16. Appellant subsequently authorized the cancellation of the
claims directed to Groups I, II, and IV. (Notice of Allowability 3).
17. The Non-Final Action rejected claims 13-16 and 18-19 on
various grounds.
3 Group II was erroneously listed as claims 1-4 and 7-11 by the Examiner in
the Restriction Requirement, but was correctly identified as claims 1-4 and
6-11 by Appellant in the response dated April 22, 1994.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013