Appeal No. 2006-0520 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/303,385
The examiner is of the opinion that Weber describes the invention as recited in
claim 14 except that Weber does not describe a rounded centrally located projection on
each endplate component. The examiner relies on Zdeblick for teaching
rounded/curved/lobed centrally located projection (projecting inward in Figure 20 and
44-45) on each endplate component. The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to take the endplates
(fig. 20, 44 and 45) of Zdeblick et al. and substitute them
with the endplates of Weber et al. (figure 6) because both
artificial disc replacements utilize a cushioned intermediate
material and both utilize rounded projections that could
"impinge" if the endplate components were subjected to an
excessive force [answer at page 4 and 5].
The appellants argue that (1) there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
Weber and Zdeblick and (2) neither reference describes a rounded centrally located
projection configured to impinge if the endplate component is subjected to excessive
force as is required by claim 15. We agree.
While Weber does disclose projections on material 14, Weber does not describe
that the projections are configured to impinge when subjected to excessive force.
Likewise, Zdeblick does not teach that the rounded projection depicted in Figures
16, 20, 44 and 45 is configured to impinge if the endplate component is subjected to
excessive force as required by claim 14. In fact, Zdeblick teaches that under
the maximum expected load the rounded projections do not impinge but are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007