Appeal No. 1999-0713
Application 08/325,629
the need for a second operation to remove the implant (see
Eitenmuller at column 1, lines 5 through 44).
Given these well known aspects of bio-resorbable implant
polymers, the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to further modify the spinal fixation apparatus
disclosed by Puno by making the plastic tie suggested by
Partridge of a resorbable plastic is sound.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable over Puno in
view of Partridge and Eitenmuller.
V. Additional matter for the examiner’s consideration
Claim 18 depends from claim 15 and recites that the
anchoring element has a major axis intersected by the slot
through which the tension stable fastening element extends.
As discussed above, the combined teachings of Puno and
Partridge would have suggested using plastic ties of the type
disclosed by Partridge in place of Puno’s wires 120, in
conjunction with suitably sized and disposed slots in Puno’s
rod support 116, to facilitate the securement of the rod
support to rod 18. It is not apparent why these same
teachings would not have suggested,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007