Appeal 2007-1526
Application 11/035,534
Reply Br. 4-6), we nevertheless agree with the Examiner that such a process
was within the ambit of one of ordinary skill of the art based on the overall
teachings of Haruyuki. The claim 21 process is attended by morphological
features of the implant that would have been expected by an ordinarily
skilled artisan when treating the implant with extremely dilute HF acid
solution. On this record, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found the subject matter of claim 21 an obvious matter of choice
depending on the implant surface properties desired.
Concerning the Examiner’s separate rejections of dependent claims
42, 85, 86, and 87, Appellants limit their arguments against the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of these claims to the arguments made against the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 79 (Br. 15 and 16).
It follows that we shall also sustain the Examiner’s separate rejections of
these dependent claims on this record.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5-7, 21, 28, 35, and 79-84
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haruyuki; to reject
claims 42, 85, and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Haruyuki in view of the admitted prior art (APA); to reject claims 42, 85,
and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haruyuki in
view of Kiyoshi; and to reject claim 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haruyuki in view of Kiyoshi and Kasuga is affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013