Appeal 2006-0423
Application 10/426,995
1 REJECTION
2 Claims 1-5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
3 Doty.
4 Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
5 Michelson.
6 Claims 1-4 and 7-9 stand provisionally rejected1 under the judicially created
7 doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as claiming the same subject matter
8 as claims 5 and 8 of copending Application No. 10/754,042.
9
10 ISSUES
11 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
12 • Whether the Examiner was correct in rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-9 under 35
13 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Doty.
14 o Whether Doty’s artificial disk replacement (Doty, Fig. 1:12), plate
15 (Doty, Fig. 7:66), and screw (Doty, Fig. 7:68) are an articulating
16 device, anchoring unit, and link member.
17 o Whether Doty’s screw (Doty, Fig. 7:68) as a link member is capable
18 of facilitating a limited degree of movement of the device.
1 The Appellant did not raise this as an issue in the Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013