Appeal No. 2005-1002
Application No. 09/991,247
spinal disc” (Specification, page 1). Representative claim 1
reads as follows:
1. A system including an interbody spinal implant for
insertion at least in part into an implantation space formed
across a disc space between adjacent vertebral bodies of a human
spine and into at least a portion of the endplates of the
vertebral bodies, said implant comprising:
a body having a leading end for insertion first into the
disc space and a trailing end opposite said leading end;
opposite upper and lower surfaces adapted to be placed in
contact with and to support the adjacent vertebral bodies;
opposite sides between said leading and trailing ends and
between said upper and lower surfaces, said upper and lower
surfaces being arcuate in a direction from one of said opposite
sides to another of said opposite sides;
a plurality of forward-facing projections extending from
said upper and lower surfaces for engaging the adjacent vertebral
bodies, at least one of said projections having a leading face
and a rearward portion, said leading face and said rearward
portion each having a length and a slope, the length of said
leading face being longer than the length of said rearward
portion, the slope of said rearward portion being steeper than
the slope of said leading face;
an opening passing through said upper and lower surfaces for
permitting for the growth of bone from adjacent vertebral body to
adjacent vertebral body through said implant; and
said implant being manufactured from a composite of cortical
bone particles and at least one bioresorbable material, said
cortical bone particles and said at least one bioresorbable
material being combined to form a machinable material from which
said implant is manufactured.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Michelson 5,484,437 Jan. 16, 1996
(Michelson ‘437)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007