Appeal No. 2007-0606
Application No. 10/011,338
Both Lin and Michelson address the analogous arts of spinal fusion implants.
Furthermore, Michelson is merely cited for the indication that it is well known in the
spinal fusion art to include holes in an implant to influence bony bond formation.1 Thus,
we are not persuaded by appellants' argument that there is no motivation to combine
Lin and Michelson.
The examiner contends that the pillars of Lin are 2mm and the holes of
Michelson are 1-3 mm (col. 5, l 43, col. 7, l 46) and therefore when the diameter or
width of the holes is 1mm they are substantially less than the diameter or width of the
pillars projecting from the exterior surface of the implant as required by claim 41.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 10, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 49-50, 54-55 and
58-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation over Sertich is affirmed. The rejection
of claims 1-13, 16-22, 24-26, 33-36, 38-50, 52, and 54-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation over Bagby is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-13, 16, 18-22,
29-31, 33-36, 38-50, 52, 54-55 and 58-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for anticipation over
Lin in view of Michelson is affirmed.
1 The specification indicates that conventional spinal implants are provided with large holes for bone
growth therethrough. Specification, page 12.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013