Appeal No. 2006-0325 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/152,485
according to appellant's specification (page 12), rigid, semi-rigid or elastic cross-coupled
members may be used depending upon the desired degree of resistance.
In light of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
appellant's specification as filed that appellant was in possession of a stabilization
device which permits a certain degree of spinal extension, by virtue of the elastic
dampening elements 1, and restricts spinal rotation, to the desired degree, by virtue of
the use of rigid, semi-rigid or elastic cross-coupled members. The above-discussed
language in claims 1-8, 10 and 11 requires no more than this. Accordingly, we
conclude that appellant's specification provides adequate written description support for
the subject matter of claims 1-8, 10 and 11. The rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The Anticipation Rejection
Each of appellant's independent claims 1 and 6 recites a pair of dampening
elements. The examiner's position (final rejection, page 5; answer, pages 5-6) is that
Westermann's plate-shaped elements 10, 12 provide response to the claimed
"dampening elements" because they restrain or restrict spinal motion. The examiner
cites a dictionary definition of damper as "One that damps, restrain [sic], or depresses"
(answer, page 5) and determines that any members which restrain or restrict motion, in
any manner, thus meet the claim language "dampening elements."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007