Appeal No. 1997-3989
Application No. 08/424,067
central rod which threadedly engages a threaded portion central to the head of the bone
screw for holding the bone screw onto the driver device. Huene does not disclose a
plurality of driver elements disposed around the tube portion of the driver.
Rich teaches a driver for inserting a threaded member such as a screw. Rich
teaches that the driver engages a threaded member by way of a central threaded rod. The
torque transmitting members are a number of driver elements which are spaced away from
the threaded rod in a radial direction. These driver elements are disclosed as reducing
the screw fatigue failure by allowing the driver to engage the screw through complementary
recesses that mate with these driver elements.
The examiner has therefore concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the driver element of Huene with the driver elements being
disposed wholly between the inner and outer walls of the tube as taught by Rich in order to
reduce screw failure. (See final rejection, paper no. 6, pages 2 and 3.)
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the arguments of
appellant and the examiner. As a result of this review, we have determined that the
applied prior art does not establish the prima facie obviousness of the claims on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007