Appeal No. 2007-0606
Application No. 10/011,338
Claim 1
Appellants do not address the prima facie case of the examiner with respect to
claim 1. Thus, the rejection claim 1 over Sertich is summarily affirmed.
Claim 35, 42, and 43
As to claims 35, 42 and 43, the examiner asserts that "the pillars of Sertich lock
into place and are 'immobile with respect to the exterior surface’.” The examiner
indicates that a locked pillar can be considered an immobile pillar. Answer, page 6.
Appellants contend, however, that Sertich does not teach a plurality of immobile
pillars projecting from each of said exterior services of the spinal implant as set forth in
claim 35. Brief, page 9. Appellants argue that the Sertich device includes "anchoring
pegs movably mounted in the top and bottom faces of the support body." Id.
We find, as did the examiner, that a locked pillar is an immobilized pillar within
the meaning of claims 35, 42 and 43. Appellants do not define the term "immobilize" in
the specification. Nor is the term found anywhere in the specification. While
immobilized pillars may be inferred from the drawings, we have no further guidance
from the specification as to any specific meaning for this term. Thus, we attribute the
ordinary meaning of the term "immobile" as "to impede movement or use." Webster's II
New Riverside Dictionary, New Riverside Publishers, New York, page 611 (1994). In
our view, locking a pillar in position is restricting its movement, and is therefore within
the ordinary meaning of the term "immobilize." Thus, we are not persuaded by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013