Appeal 2007-3762
Application 10/422,282
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a disc spacer. Claims 1 and 10 are
representative:
1. A disc spacer, comprising:
a device having at least one spherical interface involving convex and
concave surfaces, and wherein the device is configured to articulate with
respect to at least one vertebral endplate.
10. The disc spacer of claim 1, wherein the device is adapted to
articulate with an upper and a lower vertebral endplate.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Büttner-Janz 5,556,431 Sep. 17, 1996
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Büttner-Janz.
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Büttner-Janz. Appellant provides separate arguments
for two groups of claims: (1) claims 1, 2, and 5-8 and (2) claim 10.
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 10. Claims 2 and 5-8
will stand or fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013