Appeal No. 1997-1145 Page 4
Application No. 08/210,229
conventional format, from our perspective it is not indefinite
insofar as setting forth the metes and bounds of the invention
is concerned.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of
the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-
1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The first rejection under Section 102 set out by the
examiner is that independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4,
16 and 17 are anticipated by Meyers. This reference is
directed to a fracture fixation assembly for skeletal
structures such as femurs and hips, and not to a vertebral disk
stabilizer. Nevertheless, in the examiner’s view, the subject
matter of claim 1 reads on the Meyers device. In particular,
the examiner takes the position that screw 4 and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007