Appeal 2007-3762
Application 10/422,282
to which element 2 is attached. The same is true of element 2 and the
vertebral base plate to which element 1 is attached. Stated differently,
Büttner-Janz’s device is adapted to articulate with an upper and a lower
vertebral endplate.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Büttner-Janz.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Büttner-Janz. Claims 2 and 5-8 fall
together with claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON
& CITKOWSKI, P.C.
P.O. BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013