Appeal No. 2006-0325 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/152,485
The examiner's position in making this rejection is that the language "wherein the
combination of dampening and cross-coupling elements limits relative movement
between the upper and lower vertebra in some directions while permitting relative
movement in other directions" added to claims 1 and 6 and the language "wherein the
combination of dampening and cross-coupling elements restrict spinal rotation but
permit a certain degree of spinal extension" in claims 10 and 11 added in the
amendment filed July 29, 2004 lack support in the specification as originally filed. For
the reasons which follow, we do not agree with the examiner.
Appellant's specification points out on page 9 that the instant invention is
applicable to the stabilization device illustrated in Figures 8-10 and described in US Pat.
No. 5,540,688, issued to Navas on July 30, 1996 (hereinafter "the Navas patent"), the
entire content of which is incorporated into the instant specification. Such stabilization
device includes a pair of dampers anchored longitudinally to adjacent upper and lower
vertebrae. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from appellant's
specification and from the teachings of the Navas patent that the dampers permit
bending and extension of the spine while damping or resisting abrupt or improper spinal
movements but do not restrict or dampen rotational or twisting forces applied to the
spine. Such a person would further have understood from appellant's disclosure on
pages 11 and 12 of the instant specification that the cross-coupled members provide
some needed resistance to twisting and/or rotational motion of the spine. Further,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007