Appeal 2007-2372
Application 10/395,654
3. Morris discloses an implant retaining device for securing “an
intervertebral implant in a receiving bed formed between adjacent vertebrae”
(Morris, p. 1, par. 3).
4. The method of Claim 29 requires “an implant formed of bone” (Br.
App. A).
5. Michelson teaches that its implant is “any interbody spinal fusion
implant regardless of the material from which it is formed, including …
cortical bone, and other material useful for the intended purpose”
(Michelson, p. 2, par. 41).
6. Claim 29 recites an implant having “a body portion with an upper
bearing surface and opposite lower bearing surface” (Br. App. A).
7. Michelson’s implant “has a vertebral body engaging upper surface
110 and an opposite vertebral body engaging lower surface 112”
(Michelson, p. 2-3, par. 42).
8. Claim 29 recites “a flexible upper flange member and an opposite
flexible lower flange member” (Br. App. A).
9. Michelson employs an interbody implant with the trailing end
configured into a flanged portion (Michelson, p. 3, par. 44).
10. Morris describes an implant retaining plate. “When the plate is
formed from bone, it may be partially or fully demineralized. Partially
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013