Appeal 2007-1526
Application 11/035,534
According to Appellants (the named inventors), the treatment enhances the
biocompatibility of the implant, that is, the rate of attachment of bone tissue
to the implant and the strength of the implant bond (Specification 4 and 5).
Claim 79 is illustrative and reproduced below:
79. A process of treating a metallic bone implant consisting essentially of
treating the metallic bone implant with a solution of hydrofluoric acid in
which the concentration of hydrofluoric acid is 0.01% to 0.5%.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Kasuga US 4,871,384 Oct. 3, 1989
Haruyuki (as translated) JP 3-146679 Jun. 21, 1991
Kiyoshi (as translated) JP 5-285213 A Nov. 2, 1993
Claims 5-7, 21, 28, 35, and 79-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haruyuki. Claims 42, 85, and 86 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haruyuki in
view of the admitted prior art (APA). Claims 42, 85, and 86 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haruyuki in view of
Kiyoshi. Claim 87 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haruyuki in view of Kiyoshi and Kasuga.
Concerning the Examiner’s first stated rejection, Appellants group
claims 5, 28, 35, 79-81, and 84 together, and put claims 6, 7, 82, and 83 in a
second claim grouping. Hence, we select claim 79 as the representative
claim for the first claim grouping and claim 6 as the representative claim for
the second grouping of claims. Claim 21 is argued separately.
Claims 5, 28, 35, 79-81, and 84
Representative claim 79 is drawn to a process for treating a metallic
implant for bone. The process is recited as consisting essentially of treating
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013