Appeal 2006-0423
Application 10/426,995
1
2
3 The Appellant invented an artificial intervertebral disc replacement and repair.
4 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
5 claim 1, which is reproduced below.
6 1. Apparatus for limiting the movement of a prosthetic device situated
7 between opposing bones, comprising:
8 an articulating device;
9 an anchoring unit adapted for fastening to at least one of the bones;
10 and
11 a link member coupling the articulating device to the anchoring unit,
12 thereby facilitating a limited degree of movement of the device.
13 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s final rejection, mailed June 30, 2005.
14 The Appellant filed a brief in support of the appeal on December 7, 2005, and the
15 Examiner mailed an answer to the appeal brief on October 5, 2006. The Appellant
16 presented an oral argument on Apr. 24, 2007.
17
18 PRIOR ART
19 The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
20 appealed claims are:
21 Doty US 4,599,086 Jul. 8, 198621
22 Michelson US 6,190,388 B1 Feb. 20, 200122
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013