Appeal 2007-2608
Application 10/473,998
separately. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the
claimed subject matter, and claims 2-7 will stand or fall with claim 1, as
provided for under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Erickson describes intervertebral prosthetic devices (IPDs) which
include “at least two bearing surfaces provided by three components, two
components which attach to adjacent vertebrae and a third component which
is positioned between the first two. Each of the first two components or end
pieces [has] a bearing surface and a contact surface. The third component or
intermediate piece has at least two bearing surfaces. . . . the bearing surfaces
. . . [are] referred to as articular surfaces” (Erickson, col. 4, ll. 52-60). “The
curved articular surface of the end piece or intermediate piece can be
concave or convex. If the curved articular surface of the intermediate piece
is concave, the cooperating articular surface of the end piece will be convex”
and vice versa (id. at col. 5, ll. 20-26).
We find that Erickson’s “end piece”, which attaches to a vertebra, is
the same as Appellant’s “cover plate”; that the “contact surface” of
Erickson’s end piece is the same as the “contact surface” of Appellant’s
cover plate; that Erickson’s “intermediate piece” is the same as Appellant’s
“prosthesis core”; and that the “bearing” or “articular” surface of Erickson’s
end piece is the same as Appellant’s “core-matching surface”.
Figures 6 and 7 of Erickson are described as frontal and sagittal cross-
sections of the same prosthesis. A sagittal cross-section of the human body
is represented by vertical plane passing through the standing body from front
amendment. However, this is a petitionable, rather than appealable, matter,
and we express no opinion as to its propriety. See 37 CFR § 1.181.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013