Prosthesis (i.e. – artificial body members) – parts thereof – or ai – Implantable prosthesis – Ligament or tendon
Reexamination Certificate
2007-12-11
2007-12-11
Sweet, Thomas J. (Department: 3738)
Prosthesis (i.e., artificial body members), parts thereof, or ai
Implantable prosthesis
Ligament or tendon
C606S075000
Reexamination Certificate
active
11293149
ABSTRACT:
A surgical method for loading ligament grafts into a joint. A longitudinal socket formed in a bone is intersected by a transverse pin. A flexible strand is drawn with the pin through the bone. A looped portion of the strand is diverted so as to protrude out of the entrance to the longitudinal socket. The ends of the strand remaining accessible on either side of the bone. The ligament graft is captured within the strand loop protruding from the entrance to the socket. The strand is retracted into the socket, drawing the graft into the socket by pulling on the accessible ends of the flexible strand. The graft is fixed in the socket using a transverse implant.
REFERENCES:
patent: 4985032 (1991-01-01), Goble
patent: 5098435 (1992-03-01), Stednitz et al.
patent: 5266075 (1993-11-01), Clark et al.
patent: 5350380 (1994-09-01), Goble et al.
patent: 5354300 (1994-10-01), Goble et al.
patent: 5356413 (1994-10-01), Martins et al.
patent: 5393302 (1995-02-01), Clark et al.
patent: 5397356 (1995-03-01), Goble et al.
patent: 5423823 (1995-06-01), Schmieding
patent: 5431651 (1995-07-01), Goble
patent: 5562671 (1996-10-01), Goble et al.
patent: 5601562 (1997-02-01), Wolf et al.
patent: 5918604 (1999-07-01), Whelan
patent: 6132433 (2000-10-01), Whelan
patent: 6325804 (2001-12-01), Wenstrom et al.
patent: 6371124 (2002-04-01), Whelan
patent: 6537319 (2003-03-01), Whelan
patent: 6733529 (2004-05-01), Whelan
patent: 6974477 (2005-12-01), Whelan
patent: 268 4543 (1993-06-01), None
C. Harner et al., “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Endoscopic Versus Two-Incision Technique”, Arthroscopy: Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 501-512 (1994).
B. Shaffer, et al. “Graft-Tunnel Mismatch in Endoscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A New Technique of Intraarticular Measurement and Modified Graft Harvesting”, Arthroscopy: Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 633-646 (1993).
P. Scranton, Jr., et al., “Outpatient Endoscopic Quadruple Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction”, Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics, pp. 177-180 (1996).
K. Leeds “Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the ACL With Artificial Ligament”, Arthroscopy, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 65-68 (1987).
R. Larson “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendons”, Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 138-141 (Jul. 1996).
R. Schrer, et al., “Investment Opportunities in Orthopaedics”,Orthopaedic Industry Overview, (Aug. 1998).
S. Howell, “ACL Reconstruction Bone Mulch Screw Washer Loc”, pp. 1-14 Arthrotek, (1998).
D. McKernan, “Surgical Technique for Mitek RIGIDfix ACL Reconstruction” pp. 1-6, Mitek Products (1999).
T. Rosenberg, “Technique for ACL Reconstruction With Acufex Director Drill Guide and Endobutton CL”, Smith and Nephew (1999), pp. 1-19.
F. Noyes et al., “PCL Reconstruction With the Acufex Director Drill Guide Using the Noyes All-Inside PCL Technique and a Double Bundle Quadriceps Tendon Graft”.
R. Hunter, “Quadraple Loop Hamstring Graft Surgical Technique With the Phantom SolThread Interface Screw”, Dpuy Orthotechnology (1998), pp. 1-8.
L. Paulos, “Endoscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction”, pp. 1-14, Mitek Products, Inc., (1994).
Declaration of Alan Chervitz in Support of Innovasive Devices, Inc.'s Opposition to Arthrex's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Oct. 14, 1999, Case No. 99-851-CIV-ORL-18C (M.D. FL).
Declaration of Wade Fallin in Support of Innovasive Devices, Inc.'s Opposition to Arthrex's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Oct. 13, 1999, Case No. 99-851-CIV-ORL-18C (M.D. FL).
Declaration of Dennis Donnermeyer, Oct. 19, 1999, Case No. 99-851-CIV-ORL-18C (M.D. FL).
Declaration of Jeffery M. Whelan, Oct. 20, 1999, Case No. 99-851-CV-ORL-18C (M.D. FL)
DePuy Mitek Inc's Amended Answer to Arthrex's Complaint & Counterclaim, filed Oct. 14, 2004, Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-328-FTM-33DNF (M.D. FL).
Declaration of E. Marlowe Goble in Support of Innovasive Devices, Inc's Opposition to Arthrex's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (with Exhibits A, B and C), Oct. 14, 1999, Case No. 99-851-CIV-ORL-18C (M.D. FL).
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 09/015,618, mailed Sep. 2, 1988.
Response to Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 09/015,618, filed Oct. 26, 1998.
DePuy Mitek's Memorandum in Support of Its Contingent Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Arthrex's 529 Patent.
Arthrex, Inc.'s Opposition to DePuy Mitek's Contingent Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Arthrex's '529 Patent.
DePuy Mitek's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Contingent Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Arthrex's 529 Patent.
Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the '529 Patent (1) is Valid Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) and 120, (2) Is Not Anticipated, and (3) Is Valid Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1.
Defendant DePuy Mitek's Memorandum in Opposition to Arthrex's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the 529 Patent (1) is Valid Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 (e) and 120, (2) Is Not Anticipated, and (3) Is Valid Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 and in Support of Defendant DePuy Mitek's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment that Claims 1 and 2 of the 529 Patent are Anticipated and Invalid.
Arthrex, Inc.'s Opposition to DePuy Mitek's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment that Claims 1 and 2 of the '529 Patent Are Anticipated and Invalid.
DePuy Mitek's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Counter Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.
Plaintiff Arthrex Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 With Respect to the Issue of Patent Enforceability.
Defendant DePuy Mitek's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under Rule 56 with Respect to the Issue of Patent Enforceability.
Plaintiff Arthrex Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 With Respect to the Issue of Infringement.
Defendant DePuy Mitek's Memorandum in Opposition to Plantiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 With Respect to the Issue Of Infringement and In Support of DePuy Mitek's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
Arthrex, Inc.'s Opposition to DePuy Mitek's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
DePuy Mitek's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
Arthrex, Inc.'s Opposition to DePuy Mitek's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
DePuy Mitek's Combined Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Opening Brief on Claim Construction.
DePuy Mitek's Response to Arthrex's Opening Brief on Claim Construction.
DePuy Mitek's Claim Construction Memorandum.
Arthrex Inc.'s Opposition to DePuy Mitek's Claim Construction Memorandum.
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Frazier issued Oct. 17, 2006.
DePuy Mitek's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, filed Nov. 3, 2006.
Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Objections to Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction, filed Nov. 3, 2006.
Defendant DePuy Mitek, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Objections to Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction, filed Nov. 20, 2006.
Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Response to Depuy Mitek's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, filed Nov. 20, 2006.
Opinion and Order, filed Feb. 2, 2007.
Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Initial Brief on the Necessity of Construing the Term “Securing the Graft In The Opening” and On the Proper Construction of That Term, filed Mar. 19, 2007.
Defendant Depuy Mitek, Inc.'s Memorandum on the Issue of Whether the Term “Securing the Graft in the Opening” Needs to Be Construed, and If So Its Proper Construction, filed Mar. 19, 2007.
Plantiff Arthrex, Inc.'s Response t
Arthrex Inc.
Dickstein & Shapiro LLP
Sweet Thomas J.
LandOfFree
Method of loading tendons into the knee does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method of loading tendons into the knee, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method of loading tendons into the knee will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3852140