Appeal 2006-0423
Application 10/426,995
1 07. Michelson’s cylindrical fusion implant (Michelson, Fig. 1:10), variable
2 angle screw (Michelson, Fig. 1:30), and spinal rod (Michelson, Fig.
3 3:50) are a device placed between bones, anchoring unit, and link
4 member. Once installed, Michelson’s cylindrical fusion implant forms a
5 joint that does not move relative to the bones between which they are
6 installed. However, during installation, until all the anchoring screws
7 and the rod are secured in place, while the cylindrical fusion implant is
8 in place, it forms a joint that does move relative to the bones between
9 which it is placed.
10 08. Therefore, in neither Doty nor Michaelson does the device placed
11 between bones move in operation, i.e. neither device joins moveable
12 parts (FF 05), and therefore the device cannot be said to be articulating.
13 09. Similarly, it cannot be said that they facilitate a limited degree of
14 movement of the device, since there is no movement of the device.
15
16 ANALYSIS
17 Claims 1-5 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Doty.
18 From the above Findings of Fact, supported by a preponderance of substantial
19 evidence, we conclude that
20 o Doty’s artificial disk replacement (Doty, Fig. 1:12) is not an
21 articulating device, although plate (Doty, Fig. 7:66), and screw (Doty,
22 Fig. 7:68) are an anchoring unit and link member (FF 08).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013