Appeal No. 1997-1145 Page 3
Application No. 08/210,229
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 21 ) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the Briefs (Papers Nos. 18 and 22),
for the opposing viewpoints of the appellant.
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 1 is directed to a vertebral disk stabilizer
comprising an elongate implant having threads on its outer
surface and an elongate applicator detachably mounted to the
implant. Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, is directed to
“[a] kit including the stabilizer of claim 1 and a spreader for
use in connection therewith . . . .” The examiner has taken
the position that claim 4 is indefinite “because it is unclear
whether the kit includes all the limitations of claim 1 or not”
and therefore “claim 4 is broader in scope that the claim it
depends from” (Answer, page 3). While claim 4 may not present
its subject matter in what the examiner believes to be the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007