Ex Parte Medina

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13186189 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/186,189 07/19/2011
7590
Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC
P.O. Box 4484
Albuquerque, NM 87196
09/13/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Patrick Medina
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1000-2666 3806
EXAMINER
HOFFMAN, MARY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3733
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2016 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 MARK PATRICK MEDINA
Appeal2014-008015
Application 13/186, 189
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-008015
Application 13/186, 189
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an implant apparatus for spinal fusion.
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 An implant apparatus for spinal fusion, said apparatus
compnsmg:
an expandable implant cage configured to be positioned
between end plates of upper and lower vertebra, said expandable
implant cage comprising a male and female screw arrangement
and a multi-access cage expansion mechanism, wherein said
multi-access cage expansion mechanism expands a size of said
cage on tightening said male and female screw arrangement; and
an inserter for inserting said expandable implant cage in a
spinal disc space that maintains a handle, a shaft and a coupling
arrangement, wherein said inserter is operated to engage said
coupling arrangement with said male and female screw
arrangement and to tighten said male and female screw
arrangement by grabbing onto said expandable implant cage and
wherein said expandable implant cage comprises four separate
cages within said expandable implant cage.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Li et al.
("Li")
us 6,039,761
REJECTIONS
Mar. 21, 2000
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Li.
2
Appeal2014-008015
Application 13/186, 189
OPINION
The Examiner has correctly analyzed all of the issues involved in this
appeal. See Ans. 4--7. We adopt the Examiner's findings, analysis, and
conclusions as those of the Board. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F. 3d 1475,
1478 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1994); accord In re Cree, No. 2015-1365 n. 2 (Fed. Cir.
Mar. 21, 2016). We note that failure to argue claims as a subgroup in the
manner specified in 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) constitutes a waiver of the right
to demand additional subgrouping of claims within a given appealed ground.
See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F. 3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We additionally
note that new arguments presented in the Reply Brief without a showing of
good cause as to why they were not presented earlier are untimely and not
considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3