Appeal No. 2006-1877
Application 10/434,931
have made the determination that the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection will be sustained as to
claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 8. Our reasons follow.
Generally, in the language of claim 1 on appeal, Harrington discloses an artificial disc
replacement (ADR) comprising: a pair of opposing plate members (32, 34); at least one
spring member (68) disposed between the plate members to urge them apart (col. 4, lines
1-3); a convex (i.e., frustoconical) surface defined on each of the plate members where the
spring member contacts the plate members, resulting in a joint (ADR) having a center of
rotation. Concerning dependent claim 2, Harrington discloses a “feature”, i.e., the post and
ball member (45, 46) and shock absorbing plug (69), that limits the load on the spring
member (68) during axial compression of the ADR. Regarding dependent claims 3 and 4,
the spring member (68) of Harrington is disposed in a cylinder (i.e., tubular shield 78) and is
also disposed over a post (i.e., threaded post 45).
In another reading of claim 1 on Harrington, the examiner contends that this patent
discloses a pair of opposing plate members (32, 34); at least one spring member (69)
disposed between the plate members to urge them apart at least during axial compression
of the ADR; a concave surface (51) defined on one of the plate members where the spring
member contacts the plate member, resulting in a joint (ADR) having a center of rotation.
Concerning claim 2, in this instance, the annular shock absorbing member or spring (68)
constitutes a “feature” for limiting the load on the spring member (69). As for claim 3, the
spring member (69) is disposed in a cylinder defined within tubular portion (50) of the base
portion (49) and also is positioned within the cylinder defined by the tubular shield (78).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007