Appeal 2007-2372
Application 10/395,654
opposite flexible lower flange member each extending from said body
portion;
accessing the disc space between adjacent vertebrae;
inserting the body portion of the implant into the disc space;
securing the flexible upper flange member to the body of the
upper vertebra; and
securing the flexible lower flange member to the body of the
lower vertebra.
In deciding this appeal, we have considered the following: (1) the
Final Rejection, mailed October 18, 2005, (2) the Appeal Brief, filed May
18, 2006, (3) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 1, 2006, and (4) the
Reply Brief, filed October 2, 2006. We have also studied Applicant’s
Specification and Drawings and the disclosures of Michelson, Morris, and
Scarborough.
Findings of Fact
1. Claim 29 recites a method of inserting an interbody fusion implant
into “the disc space between adjacent vertebrae” (Br. App. A).
2. Michelson discloses “an interbody spinal fusion implant … for
introduction into a disc space between adjacent vertebral bodies”
(Michelson, p. 1, par. 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013