11187417 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2013)

Ex Parte Jackson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 2013

11187417 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/187,417 07/22/2005 Roger P. Jackson 10,546 8234 27456 7590 03/12/2013 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. MCMAHON P.O. BOX 860305 Shawnee, KS 66286 EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3775 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/12/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte ROGER P. JACKSON __________ Appeal 2011-010740 Application 11/187,417 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2011-010740 Application 11/187,417 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are drawn to a spinal medical implant closure, and may be found in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-23). Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Jackson 1 and Hills 2 (Ans. 3). In addition, claims 16-19 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Jackson and Hills, as further combined with Morrison 3 (Ans. 5). We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellant’s arguments that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own. 4 We note further that we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Applicant’s own prior patent, the Jackson reference, does not show a “mechanism to prevent a tool during the driving or installation process from engaging the removal head and thus over torquing the closure” (App. Br. 12). 1 Jackson, US 6,224,596 B1, issued May 1, 2001. 2 Hills, US 3,444,775, issued May 20, 1969. 3 Morrison et al., US 6,296,642 B1, issued Oct. 2, 2001. 4 We note that this appeal is related to Appeal No. 2011-008856, decided concurrently herewith. We also note that Appellant did file a Reply Brief, which the Examiner noted, but the arguments are directed only to the issue of whether Jackson and Hills are analogous art, which the Examiner addressed in the Answer (see Ans. 7-8). Appeal 2011-010740 Application 11/187,417 3 Figures 12 and 9 are reproduced below. Figure 12 is an embodiment of a set screw taught by Jackson (Jackson, col. 4, ll. 66-67). Figure 9 is a “fragmentary front elevational view of the set screw shown secured within a socket wrench with portions broken away to show detail” (id. at col. 4, ll. 56-58). As taught by Jackson: A drive slot 86 is located at the upper end 85 of the set screw head 71. The slot 86 is a rectangular notch extending downward from the upper end 85 with portions on diagonally opposite sides of the screw 70. The set screw 70 is preferably driven by a hexagonal socket type wrench 39 as described above and partially shown in FIG. 9 in use with the set screw 1 of the first embodiment. The slot 86 can receive mating parts of the wrench 39; however, the drive slot 86 is adapted to also receive a flat head screwdriver type tool for starting the set screw 70 into the threaded set screw bore 11 in some applications. (Id. at col. 8, ll. 12-22.) Appeal 2011-010740 Application 11/187,417 4 Thus, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the collar of Hills performs the same function as the drive slot 86, that is, each prevent the torque applying tool from extending from beyond the outermost head. The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 cdc