Appeal 2007-2608
Application 10/473,998
Claims 1-7, all the pending claims, are directed to a “system”
including “first” and “second” intervertebral disc prostheses. Independent
claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. System of intervertebral disc prostheses which includes a first
prostheses and a second prostheses, consisting of:
a prosthesis core and
at least one cover plate which has a core-matching surface
cooperating with the prosthesis core and a contact surface intended to
adjoin a vertebral body,
the second prosthesis has a corrective cover plate whose core-
matching surface is offset ventrodorsally relative to the contact
surface by comparison with the first prostheses.
Claim 1 requires a “system” of first and second prostheses (wherein
each prosthesis has a core and at least one cover plate, and wherein each
cover plate has a core-matching surface and a contact surface), and wherein
the second prosthesis has a cover plate whose core-matching surface is offset
ventrodorsally relative to the contact surface by comparison with the first
prosthesis. Thus, we find that claim 1 encompasses a “system” wherein the
ventrodorsal offset is between two different prostheses (i.e., the first and
second prostheses), and not necessarily between the two cover plates of a
single prosthesis. The term “system” is not defined in the Specification.
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Erickson.2,3 Appellant has not argued the rejected claims
2 U.S. Patent 6,368,350 B1 to Erickson et al., issued April 9, 2002.
3 The Examiner also objected, under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a), to “[t]he amendment
filed March 3, 2005 . . . because it introduces new matter into the disclosure”
(Answer 3). Appellant asks us to review the Examiner’s objection to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013