Appeal 2007-2643
Application 10/165,805
that the device can be grafted into a “restoredly stretched” spine during its
use in a clinical operation (Yen, col. 6, ll. 32-58). Further, Yen teaches the
device for insertion between two segments of a patient’s spine (Yen, col. 1,
ll. 55-56). Accordingly, we find that Yen’s device has an “implant shape.”
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions to the contrary.
On reflection we find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-6 and 19-26 fall together with claim 1.
Claim 27:
Claim 27 is drawn to a device. The device of claim 27 comprises: (1)
a first portion; (2) a second portion; (3) a load cell; and (4) information
transmission structures. Claim 27 requires that at least a part of the first
portion is fittable with respect to a second portion to form an intervertebral
implant shape having opposing load distribution surfaces shaped for
substantially even contact of adjacent vertebrae above and below an
intervertebral space. In addition, claim 27 requires that the load cell is
mounted on at least one of said first and second portions to receive a force of
displacement of said first portion with respect to second portion. Further,
claim 27 requires the information transmission structures to be associated
with the load cell transmitting information about a measured force of the
first portion with respect to the second portion away from the load cell.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013