Appeal 2007-1707
Application 10/335,597
for guidance because claims are interpreted in view of the specification as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish,
393 F.3d 1253, 1256, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As
explained in the Specification, the “invention” provides
single-component bone screws and bone plates that offer the
surgeon the ability to either assemble the screws to the plate, or
the plate to the screws. . . . With this invention, the surgeon is
given intraoperative flexibility regarding the approach taken
when applying the system, allowing the clinician to use either a
plate first or anchors first approach with the same screws and
plate. . . . [T]he bone screws and bone plates can include
material resilience features to allow expansion/contraction
during assembly to enable bi-directional attachment one
another.
(Specification 3: 3-11.)
Figs. 11-12 of the Specification illustrate a bone plate with a resilient
aperture. The aperture is characterized as a “resilient aperture” – the same
phrase recited in claim 1 – having “material resilience.” (Specification 23:
10-11.) The “material resilience” enables the aperture to stretch (“expand”)
over the screw head when the bone plate is forced over it, and then to
contract back around it, holding the bone plate in place. In other words, it is
the aperture material, itself, which possesses the resilient property.
The term “resilient” is not defined in the Specification. However, the
Examiner finds that “resilient” means “adjusts easily” (Answer 4). In the
context of the Specification which describes the resilient aperture as having
“material resilience,” we interpret “resilient aperture” to mean that aperture
“adjusts easily” to force by being comprised of a material capable of
expanding and contracting.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013