Appeal 2006-0423
Application 10/426,995
1
2 • Whether the Examiner was correct in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, and 7 under 35
3 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Michelson.
4 o Whether Michelson’s cylindrical fusion implant (Michelson, Fig.
5 1:10), variable angle screw (Michelson, Fig. 1:30), and spinal rod
6 (Michelson, Fig. 3:50) are an articulating device, anchoring unit, and
7 link member.
8 o Whether Michelson’s spinal rod (Michelson, Fig. 3:50) as a link
9 member is capable of facilitating a limited degree of movement of the
10 device.
11 In particular, the Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
12 would understand an articulating device to be moveable in operation.
13
14 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
15 The following Findings of Fact (FF), based upon a preponderance of
16 substantial evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
17 01. The Specification does not contain a lexicographic definition of the word
18 “articulating” or the phrase “articulating device.” Indeed the only use of
19 the word “articulating” in the disclosure as filed is in the claims.
20 02. The use of the phrase “articulating device” in the only independent
21 claim, claim 1, would clearly be construed by a person of ordinary skill
22 in the art as within the anatomical context because of the preamble
23 reference to “movement of a prosthetic device situated between
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013