Appeal No. 2006-1877
Application 10/434,931
An artificial disc replacement (ADR), comprising;
a pair of opposing plates;
at least one spring disposed between plates to urge them apart; and
a concave or convex surface on one of the plates where the spring contacts that
plate, resulting in a joint having a center of rotation
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Harrington 5,893,889 Apr. 13, 1999
Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Harrington.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary with regard to the above-
noted § 102 rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellant and the
examiner regarding that rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
April 25, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed
March 24, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art Harrington reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007