Appeal 2007-3762
Application 10/422,282
the ventral edge area of the prosthesis plates 1, 2 to receive the bone screws
9 (Büttner-Janz, col. 2, ll. 57-61).
According to the Examiner, Büttner-Janz’s device is configured to
articulate with respect to at least one vertebral endplate, or relative to both
vertebrae (Answer 4-5: bridging sentence). In contrast, Appellant asserts
that “the device of Büttner-Janz includes two components which articulate
with each other, but neither one of them articulate with respect to at least one
vertebral endplate. Rather, they are fused to the endplates using spikes for
attachment purposes” (Br. 4). Therefore, the issue on this appeal is whether
Büttner-Janz teaches a disc spacer that is configured to articulate with
respect to at least one vertebral endplate.
According to claim 1, Appellant’s device is configured to articulate
with respect to (e.g., relative to2) at least one vertebral endplate. However,
as the Examiner points out, there is no requirement in Appellant’s claimed
invention “that the device contact[s] the vertebrae” (Answer 5). To the
contrary, the Examiner finds that Appellant’s claim 1 simply requires that
the device “move relative to the vertebrae” (id.).
Accordingly, the issue distills down to what is encompassed by
Appellant’s use of the phrase “articulate with respect to” as it appears in
claim 1. Our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation.
Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally
allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.’
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571; accord Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372;
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (‘An essential
2 Answer 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013