Appeal No. 1999-0713
Application 08/325,629
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 15, and of claims 11, 14, 16
and 17 which stand or fall therewith, as being unpatentable
over Puno in view of Partridge.
III. Group II - claims 10, 12 and 13
Independent claim 12 recites a spinal column fixation
device comprising a single piece anchoring element and head
section, a plurality of transverse slots in the head section,
and a tension stable fastening element adapted to be
positioned in one of the slots for attaching the fixation
device to a longitudinal support piece. The fastening element
is further defined as comprising a belt formed in a loop and a
closure element on the belt movable along the belt in one
direction only to reduce the size of the loop.
For the reasons discussed above, and notwithstanding the
appellant’s hindsight arguments to the contrary, the combined
teachings of Puno and Partridge would have suggested the
subject matter recited in claim 12. Therefore, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 12,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007