Appeal No. 2007-0606
Application No. 10/011,338
We disagree. In our view, Figure 5 depicts splines or threads interrupted by
holes which meet the claim recitation of "a plurality of pillars."
Appellants argue that splines are only present in the embodiment of Figures 15-
19 of Bagby. We are not persuaded by this argument. Bagby, col. 6, ll 9-12, states
that in Figure 1 the cylindrical base body may include splines or threads. Col 6, ll 20-23
recites that the spline includes "any thread, web, strip, ridge, or portion of material
formed from continuous material, or broken into fragments (interrupted)." As is clear
from the figures of Bagby an interrupted thread may take the configuration of a
rectangular pillar.
Finally appellants argue that Bagby does not disclose a spinal implant having a
plurality of pillars projecting from an exterior surface of the implant and a plurality of
holes therethrough, wherein the implant is adapted for insertion between said opposing
vertebrae for fusing said vertebrae as recited in claims 45 and 52.
As is seen from the discussion above with respect to claims 30 and 4 above,
each of the features indicated to be missing from Bagby are present. The appellants
have failed to provide convincing argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie case of
anticipation of the examiner, and the anticipation rejection over Bagby is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013