US 7942903

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and any litigation activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to confirm litigation status specific to this patent number.

Let me try to retrieve the literal claim set for verification.

US 7,942,903 — Identification Summary

Note on scope of this answer: The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated mid‑description (it ends in the Detailed Description before the claims). I therefore have the complete specification, abstract, summary and bibliographic data, but not the literal issued claim language. My independent‑claim overview below is built from (a) the patent's own "SUMMARY" section recitation of "general aspects," and (b) the WIPO/ISA written opinion for the sibling PCT application PCT/US2007/021013, whose claim grouping matches those aspects. I flag uncertainty explicitly where it exists. I did not find any search result that contradicts the bibliographic data below.

---

1. Bibliographic data (per Google Patents, and corroborated by USPTO/PTAB documents)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7942903/en

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus is disclosed which includes at least first and second sliding boxes. A first screw member having a tapered end and a threaded body is disposed within the first sliding box, and a second screw member having a tapered end and a threaded body disposed within the second sliding box. An adjuster adjusts the height of the sliding boxes. The screw members are screwed into vertebral bodies in order to fuse the vertebral bodies together. A plurality of the self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatuses may be attached together and/or integrated via a plate or cage. Also disclosed is a cervical facet staple that includes a curved staple base and at least two prongs attached to the bottom surface of the curved staple base."

---

3. Independent‑claim overview (plain language)

The patent's Summary recites the invention in the same order the claims appear, and the ISA written opinion for the co‑pending PCT application PCT/US2007/021013 (published as WO 2008/042303 A2, priority claimed from 11/842,855) identifies this claim structure: Group I, claims 1–15 and 24 (screw apparatus); Group II, claims 16–17 and 25 (tool assembly); Group III, claims 18–22 (cervical facet staple and impaction tool); Group IV, claim 23 (lumbar facet staple) — i.e., 25 total claims, with seven independent aspects. Mapped to the patent's own "general aspects":

1. Expandable transvertebral screw "box" (claims 1 et seq.) — A bone‑fusion screw device with two relatively sliding boxes (e.g., top/bottom triangular sliding bases), a first screw with tapered end and threaded body in the first box, a second screw likewise in the second box, and an adjuster (screw) that changes the height of the boxes as they slide on rails — letting the surgeon custom‑fit the disc‑space height/depth and drive the two screws bi‑directionally (one rostrally, one caudally) into the superior and inferior vertebral bodies. Features: ridged/bone‑engaging surfaces, bone‑graft holes, hollow casings.
2. Non‑expandable box with two laterally‑aligned screws and side ridges (claim 10 et seq.) — A single box containing two screws both laterally aligned with the box, with a plurality of ridges along the box sides for biting into the vertebral endplates; may include bone‑graft holes and may be attachable to a second such apparatus via a plate.
3. Two-box construct joined by an attachment member (claim 13 et seq.) — A first box with a laterally aligned screw, a second box with a laterally aligned screw, and an attachment member (a plate, or a circumferential cage with a recess) engaging the two boxes; the boxes may be held in the cage recess, e.g. by interference fit, and the plate may be screwed to the boxes.
4. Surgical tool assembly (claims 16–17, 25) — A handle, a gripper cooperating with the handle and having prongs, and a screw guide held in place by the prongs to control screw trajectory into the vertebral body; may include a key (Allen key) for the height adjuster, and a driver assembly with a flexible drive shaft to reach screws past the spinous processes.
5. Cervical facet staple (claims 18 et seq.) — A curved staple base contoured to the facet surface, at least two (or four) prongs on its bottom face, and an insertion member (threaded insert) on the top face for coupling to an impactor; prongs may carry ridges/fishhooks.
6. Cervical facet staple impaction tool (claims 21–22) — A handle (with a flattened, mallet‑strikeable portion), a stem, wings that contact/hold the staple base, and an insertion member that couples to the staple (screwed into the staple's threaded insert).
7. Lumbar facet staple with calibrated ratchet (claim 23) — A pair of rotating arms with at least two prongs on their inner surfaces, spurs on one arm, and a ratchet on one arm, so the arms can be incrementally closed to staple a lumbar facet joint to a calibrated degree.

Independent claim count: seven aspects, i.e., interleaved independent claims (approximately claims 1, 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23), with the remainder dependent — but see the caveat below.

---

4. Litigation / docket search results (including CAFC 2026)

• No CAFC 2026 docket or opinion naming US 7,942,903 was found. The 2026 Federal Circuit decision in this family is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24‑1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), affirming summary judgment and a jury verdict of noninfringement. The patents at issue there are US 8,353,913; 9,889,022; and 10,478,319 — not 7,942,903. The court held the "universal" preamble language limiting and construed it as "an intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed to be inserted between [vertebrae/vertebral bodies] in any region of the spine … using any approach."
  • https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf
  • https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/09/11/opinions-orders-september-11-2026/
  • https://natlawreview.com/article/preamble-backbone-universal-limits-spinal-implant-claims
• US 7,942,903 itself appears in litigation/PTAB records chiefly as a priority ancestor, not as an asserted patent in the cases surfaced. USPTO/PTAB submissions state that applications 13/084,543 and 13/108,982 are continuations of 11/842,855 (patented as 7,942,903).
• Caution on similar numbers (do not conflate):
  • In Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25‑cv‑00769 (D. Minn., filed Feb. 28, 2025), the shorthand "'293 patent" refers to a patent issued April 14, 2015 from application 13/108,982 — per Google Patents that application issued as US 9,005,293, a different patent (a continuation in the 7,942,903 family), not 7,942,903. Asserted patents there include the '293, '674, '284, '738, '505, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755 and '367 patents. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2025cv00769/[223222](/patent/223222)
  • Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711) asserts the '854 patent, with the '293 patent referenced in pre‑suit notice correspondence.
  • US 8,353,913 and 9,889,022 share the same title as 7,942,903 but are separate patents; they, not 7,942,903, were before the Federal Circuit in 2026.
• Document inconsistency to flag (not auto‑corrected): One PTAB‑submitted priority listing reads "13108982 is a CON of 11842855 08/21/2007 PAT 7942901," while an adjacent line in the same document reads "…PAT 7942903." I am reporting both identifiers literally as they appear; 7,942,901 was not verified and may be a transcription error in that filing.

---

5. Prosecution / prior‑art context (relevant to claim scope)

The ISA written opinion for the sibling PCT application cited:

• US 5,290,312 A (Kojimoto et al.) — used to reject the broad "first/second sliding box + two screws + height adjuster" claim as lacking novelty;
• US 2005/0177235 A1 (Baynham et al.) — triangular sliding boxes, adjusting screw, sliding rail, ridges, bone‑graft hole;
• US 2002/0068977 A1 (Jackson) — ridges, side windows, connector plate, circumferential cage.

Because the PCT claim 1 as searched was read on Kojimoto, the issued US claim 1 almost certainly carries additional limitations relative to the aspect described in the Summary. I cannot state the issued claim text with confidence.

---

6. Explicit uncertainty statement

• High confidence: patent number, title, application number, filing date, issue date, priority chain, inventors, assignee/assignment history, legal status, abstract, and the general subject matter of each claim group.
• Low/medium confidence (flagged): the exact wording and numbering of the issued independent claims of US 7,942,903. The literal claim set was not present in the authoritative text I was given, and the closest claim‑text source I retrieved (the PCT counterpart's ISA written opinion) reflects the international claims, which were rejected over Kojimoto and therefore were likely amended before the US grant. A definitive answer on claim text should be taken from the granted patent's claim column via USPTO PatentCenter or the printed patent.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7,942,903. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search more specifically for litigation asserting the '903 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,942,903

Bottom line

Based on my searches (Google Patents family/litigation data, CourtListener dockets, RPX Insight, PTAB/PTActs filings, the Federal Circuit, and law-firm press releases), I did not find any case in which U.S. Patent No. 7,942,903 ("the '903 patent") was itself named as an asserted patent-in-suit. What the record consistently shows is that the '903 patent is the parent (via the 11/842,855 application) of a large Moskowitz Family LLC patent family whose continuations have been actively litigated. In every complaint and IPR I located, the '903 patent appears only in prosecution/priority-chain discussions, not in the counts of infringement or the IPR grounds.

I want to be explicit about confidence: I cannot rule out an assertion of the '903 patent in some smaller or sealed matter, but nothing in the sources I reviewed shows one, and the primary active campaigns (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive) assert other family members.

The '903 patent at a glance (for grounding)

• Patent: US 7,942,903 B2 — "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion"
• Application 11/842,855, filed 2007-08-21; granted 2011-05-17; priority to 2005-04-12
• Inventors: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz; Pablo A. Valdivia y Alvarado; Mosheh T. Moskowitz; Nathan C. Moskowitz
• Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (originally individual/Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz)
• Google Patents flags the family as having litigation (Darts-IP family 39269006), and the '903 is a named parent of the asserted patents below.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7942903/en

Litigation involving the '903 patent family (the '903 not named as an asserted patent)

How the '903 patent appears in each

• Globus (E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271): The asserted patents were U.S. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; and 10,478,319 — all continuations of the '903. The '903 appears in the court record only as a priority-chain parent referenced in an exhibit (prosecution history / claim-amendment exhibit, Dkt. 324-3). Federal Circuit No. 24-1696 affirmed the complete Globus win (claim construction of "universal" and non-infringement). Sources: Susman Godfrey win summary; Law360 (Sept. 11, 2026); CourtListener Dkt. 17323786, Att. #3.
• Medtronic (D. Minn., filed 2:25-cv-00769, 2:28-25): Medtronic counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity of '293, '674, '284, '738, '505, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755, and '367 — again continuations of the '903. The '903 is recited only in mandatory-notice priority chains (e.g., IPR2026-00216 notices). Sources: PTActs IPR2026-00216 mandatory notices; Docket Alarm IPR2026-00121 Ex. 2019.
• NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711): The asserted patents are '293, '854, and '743; the complaint expressly notes that "U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903 … is a parent of the '743 patent" and that the examiner cited the '903 during prosecution of a NuVasive patent — i.e., prior-art/priority discussion, not a count of infringement. Source: CourtListener Dkt. 70476467, Doc. 1.

Related PTAB proceedings (family, not the '903)

• Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, IPR2020-01305 (challenging a family continuation).
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00121, IPR2026-00216 (challenging family continuations such as the '284 and others).
• Note: these are AIA trials, not district-court "litigation," and none of the petitions I found names the '903 patent as the challenged patent.

What I could not confirm

• No complaint, judgment, or docket entry naming the '903 patent as a patent-in-suit. The '903 is best characterized as the root of the asserted Moskowitz family, not an asserted patent itself.
• I did not locate any Darts-IP/Unified Patents/PACER entry specifically docketing the '903 patent as an asserted patent. The Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag refers to the family, not necessarily to the '903 patent individually.
• PACER is paywalled and I did not retrieve raw district-court dockets directly; my case details come from secondary aggregators (CourtListener, RPX Insight, PTActs, firm press releases). Treat the specific case details as well-supported but verify against PACER before relying on them in a filing.

Caveat on identifiers: Per your instruction, I have not auto-corrected any patent numbers. I note that one retrieved USPTO document showed an applicant-supplied priority string listing "11842855 … PAT 7942901," while PTO records and all other sources list 11/842,855 as 7,942,903. I am treating 7,942,903 as the correct patent for this request and merely flagging the discrepancy rather than silently correcting it.

If you want, I can next pull the full PACER dockets for 2:20-cv-03271, 0:25-cv-00769, and 1:25-cv-00711 to confirm the complete patent-in-suit lists and check for any amended complaint that adds the '903 patent.

I'll start by checking the canonical source (the structured PTAB block says no proceedings on file) and then run targeted web searches to see whether anything older or newly-filed surfaces.

The first-pass searches surfaced the family/prosecution chain and a district-court case, but no PTAB proceedings. Let me dig specifically for any IPR/PGR naming 7942903, and check the litigation context.

This is a rich landscape. The searches confirm a large Medtronic v. Moskowitz PTAB campaign — but against other patents in the family, not against 7942903 itself. Let me confirm there is no challenge to 7942903 specifically and pin down the campaign's scope.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 7,942,903

Analyst note on sourcing: The canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" block in my instructions states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I ran targeted web searches to look for older or recently-filed proceedings the ODP may not have indexed. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. 7,942,903. What I did find is a large, active Medtronic v. Moskowitz Family LLC PTAB campaign against sibling/child patents in the same family — that is flagged below as context, but it is not a proceeding against 7,942,903.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 7,942,903: 0 — zero active, zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained (no FWDs exist), zero settled, zero institution denials. The bottom line defensive posture: this specific patent has never been tested at the PTAB and its claims stand exactly as issued — but it sits inside a patent family that Medtronic is currently dismantling patent-by-patent, so the absence of an IPR here is a timing/strategy signal, not evidence of invulnerability.

Caveat (do not skip): 7,942,903 is the ancestral patent of a large family. Medtronic's IPRs target the later continuations that track the accused Medtronic products (e.g., U.S. 9,005,293; 11,096,797; 10,064,738; 10,603,183; 12,011,367). Because 7,942,903 has an adjusted expiration of 2028-01-23 and the newer children expire later, an accused infringer's incentive to kill this patent specifically is comparatively lower. Treat the family campaign as a lead, not as a proceeding on this docket.

---

Per-proceeding sections

There are no proceedings to report for U.S. 7,942,903. Per the output constraints, I will not invent proceeding numbers, judges, or outcomes. The template's per-proceeding fields (filing date, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) are therefore N/A across the board for this patent.

---

Flagged: related proceedings on other Moskowitz patents in the same family (NOT proceedings on 7,942,903)

These are surfaced so a defendant understands the campaign, but none names U.S. 7,942,903 as the challenged patent, and none creates estoppel against 7,942,903.

Common thread worth noting: In these sibling IPRs, Medtronic relies on a recurring art set — Waugh (US 2008/0249569), Messerli (US 2010/0305704), Byrd (US 7,077,864), Michelson, Simpson (US 6,342,074), and Palmatier (US 9,445,919) — plus, critically, "Moskowitz 440" (US 2008/0033440 A1), which is the published application that matured into 7,942,903 itself. Petitioner uses Moskowitz 440 as the primary reference against the child patents, arguing the children are obvious over the parent's own disclosure. That is a powerful family-internal prior-art vector — but it cannot be turned against 7,942,903 itself (a patent's own publication is not prior art to it).

I was not able to retrieve final written decisions, claim-level verdicts, judge panels, or any Federal Circuit appeals for these siblings within my search budget; none should be assumed.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of 7,942,903. No claim of U.S. 7,942,903 has been canceled, narrowed, or held unpatentable in any AIA proceeding — there is no PTAB record for this patent. Accordingly, every claim is "UNTESTED" rather than "SUSTAINED" or "CANCELED." (One important limitation: the authoritative full text provided to me cuts off inside the Detailed Description, before the claims; I therefore cannot enumerate the claim set or quote individual claim numbers for this patent, and I will not guess at them. Any statement about which specific claims are at risk must await the issued claim text.)

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted against 7,942,903, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not exist for this patent. Medtronic (or any other petitioner) is not barred from filing a first IPR against 7,942,903, and a defendant is not restricted by grounds "raised or reasonably could have raised" against it. The practical constraint is the § 315(b) one-year bar: a petition against 7,942,903 must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of that patent. If a defendant has been served on 7,942,903, the window is running; if not, the art is fully available. The sibling IPRs confirm the family's key art (Waugh, Messerli, Byrd, Palmatier, and Moskowitz 440 for the children) is mapped and already documented — a defendant could repurpose that work product against 7,942,903 subject to the § 315(b) clock and the differing priority date (7,942,903 claims priority to 2005-04-12 / 2005-08-23 / 2006-09-29).

Pattern signals. (1) Same petitioner, multiple IPRs: Medtronic, Inc. has filed at least six IPRs against Moskowitz patents in this family and filed them in rapid succession (late 2025 into 2026), a coordinated campaign to blunt Moskowitz Family LLC's assertion set. (2) Aggressive parallel litigation: Moskowitz is enforcing broadly — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn.) (asserting a dozen patents); a NuVasive action (No. 1:25-cv-00711, D. Del.); earlier Globus (E.D. Pa., 2:20-cv-03271) and ZimVie (D. Del., 1:22-cv-01632) suits. Patent Owner is actively opposing institution with discretionary-denial briefs (§ 314(a)/§ 325(d), Fintiv-style and Advanced Bionics-style arguments), and the Board/Director has at least once referred a Moskowitz IPR to the merits (IPR2025-01598 decision, 2026-01-27). (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) is visible in the chain as a petitioner; the campaign appears to be a litigation-driven, defendant-funded effort.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing an assertion of U.S. 7,942,903: the patent has no PTAB history. There is no canceled claim to exploit and no FWD to cite — the "troll's claims are dead" narrative does not apply here. Instead, run the § 315(b) clock immediately: confirm your complaint-service date and calendar the one-year IPR deadline.
• Prior-art lead, not a conclusion: the Waugh / Messerli / Byrd / Palmatier / Michelson art asserted against the Moskowitz children has already been analyzed and charted by Medtronic's expert (Brad Culbert). Those proceedings (IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00124, IPR2026-00265, IPR2026-00285) are the fastest way to obtain ready-made invalidity mappings — but note that 7,942,903's earlier priority date and its role as the family's foundational disclosure may mean Moskowitz 440 is unavailable against it, so the winning theory will differ from the sibling cases.
• Active family proceedings to monitor for estoppel and collateral effect: IPR2026-00265 (U.S. 10,064,738) is the only confirmed instituted case; institutions/FWDs there may produce claim-construction rulings and priority holdings that carry across the family. Track via PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts) and CourtListener for any CAFC appeals.
• Confirm nothing was missed: because the ODP shows zero proceedings for this patent and my web searches found none, I state plainly: there is no PTAB activity on file for U.S. 7,942,903 as of 2026-10-01. The absence is itself a signal — a patent this heavily asserted but with a 2028 expiration may simply not be worth the cost of an IPR, which means your best invalidity vehicle for this patent is likely the district court, not the Board.

I'll research this patent's assignment record and litigation history before assembling the report.

I found several key documents. Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment records and the litigation pattern.

Let me pin down the specific assignment records and litigation involving the '903 patent itself.

Ownership Analysis — US 7,942,903 B2

Patent: US 7,942,903 B2 — "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion"
Appl. No.: 11/842,855 · Filed: 2007-08-21 · Issued: 2011-05-17 · Priority: 2005-04-12 (prov. 60/670,231)
Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2028-01-23 · Family litigation flag: present (Google Patents / Darts‑IP family 39269006)

Source caveat (read first): I could not open assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly in this session — the Assignment Center returns no crawlable record pages, and my queries returned no indexed Assignment Center record for the '903 patent. The reel/frame numbers below are taken from USPTO 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain‑of‑title statements filed in the '903 continuation family (which cite reel/frame verbatim) and from Google Patents legal events on the '903 page. Where a reel/frame is cited from a sibling application's 3.73(c) statement rather than confirmed on the '903 patent itself, I flag it. No reel/frame below was fabricated; the correspondence of reel/frame to a specific execution date should be re-verified on the Assignment Center before being relied on. Correspondent-of-record names for the assignment filings were not retrievable — that is a gap, not a finding.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns: This is not the classic "all inventors bolt within 12 months → fire‑sale" profile. It is a family/individual inventor group (three Moskowitzes plus an outside engineer) who filed as individuals with small‑entity status and held the patent personally for years. Notably, Eric Sugalski (Arlington, MA) is an inventor on later continuations but is not an inventor on the '903, so the Sugalski→Moskowitz assignment (reel 045904/0815) does not touch the '903 chain. The rights were consolidated into Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz first, then into a family holding LLC — the reverse of a fire‑sale.

---

Original assignee

Google Patents lists the original assignee as "Individual" — i.e., no company was the assignee on the issued patent; the four inventors owned it personally. There is therefore no operating company that "shipped a product" of the '903 and no corporate predecessor to trace.

The de facto original owner of record = Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz (individually), who received assignments of each co‑inventor's interest, and then conveyed to Moskowitz Family LLC.

• Moskowitz Family LLC — Maryland LLC, principal place of business 212 North Adams St, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850. Per its own infringement complaint (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769 ¶7): the company "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property." It holds "nearly one hundred" US patents (PatentsView counts ~56 granted; PlainPatent ~56). Status: operating as an IP‑holding/licensing entity; not a product manufacturer. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition found.

---

Assignment timeline

Records for this chain, in order. Reel/frame cited from USPTO 3.73(c) statements unless marked (not confirmed on '903 record).

• ~2008–2009 (recorded) — Reel 035557/0312, 039331/0648, 039331/0867 (cited on the '913 continuation's 3.73(b); applies to the '903 parent chain, not independently confirmed against the '903 record)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Named inventors of the '208,644 / '536,815 parent family
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz, 212 N Adams St, Rockville, MD 20850
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: internal consolidation of inventor rights — individual/family holding, not a corporate transfer.

• 2015-05-04 (executed) / recorded 2015 — Reel 045636/0075

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ALVARADO, PABLO A. VALDIVIA Y
  • Assignee: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available records
  • Context: inventor→individual consolidation (one co‑inventor's interest into the lead inventor).

• 2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded ~2015–2016 — Reel 045997/0805

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, MOSHEH T.
  • Assignee: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: inventor→individual consolidation (family pooling).

• 2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded ~2015–2016 — Reel 046069/0540

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, AHMNON D.
  • Assignee: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: inventor→individual consolidation (family pooling).

• 2018-03-14 per Google Patents legal events (execution date not confirmed) — Reel 045586/0373 (and, in a second recording batch, Reel 048237/0270)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
  • Assignee: MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: transfer of the family portfolio into a single IP‑holding LLC — inventor‑controlled consolidation, not a sale to a third‑party monetizer.

• Reel 057014/0629 — SCHOON, DAVID → Moskowitz Family LLC (appears in the same 3.73(c) chains but pertains to inventorship on later continuations, not the '903 record)

  • Context: joinder of a later co‑inventor; not part of the '903 chain.

Net for the '903: four inventor-side assignments to Nathan C. Moskowitz, then one conveyance to Moskowitz Family LLC. No third-party buyer, no securitization, no security interest, no release, no change of name appear in the record I retrieved.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7942903
    2005 : Priority provisional filed
    2007 : Application 11 842 855 filed
    2011 : Patent issued to individual inventors
    2015 : Alvarado assigns to Nathan Moskowitz
    2016 : Mosheh Moskowitz assigns to Nathan Moskowitz
         : Ahmnon Moskowitz assigns to Nathan Moskowitz
    2018 : Nathan Moskowitz assigns to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2019 : Globus suit filed in W D Texas
    2020 : Globus suit refiled in E D Pa
    2025 : Medtronic and NuVasive suits filed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — UNCLEAR (structurally present, indicia absent). The '903 moved into Moskowitz Family LLC, a non-product IP-holding LLC (reel 045586/0373; 048237/0270). But every classic shell indicator is missing: the LLC's principals are the inventors themselves (complaint ¶2: "Moskowitz Family LLC was formed by Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz… the lead inventor"), the address is a real Rockville, MD office, not a registered-agent mail drop, and there is no unrelated third-party monetizer. A transfer from an individual inventor to his own licensing LLC is not, standing alone, a shell-entity finding.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Moskowitz Family LLC nor Nathan C. Moskowitz appears on any enumerated list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities). Note: Moskowitz Family LLC is indexed in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as an asserter (e.g., '831 patent record; Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic), so it is tracked as a litigant — but it is not a list-matched high-frequency aggregator.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT DETERMINABLE / NOT PRESENT as a red flag. The assignment-record correspondent names could not be retrieved in this session, so I cannot assert recurrence. What I can confirm is the prosecution correspondent, which recurs across the family's later filings: Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022 (e.g., on 16/280,684), with John Jeremy Dresch as filer on 13/084,543. A single blue-chip prosecution firm paired with a single family entity is the opposite of the "many shells, one lawyer" pattern. This signal is unverified and should not be scored against the patent.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There is one chained entity (Moskowitz Family LLC) at the end of a consolidation into a natural person. No <24-month chain of unrelated LLCs sharing a correspondent address or common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (timing). The Nathan→Moskowitz Family LLC conveyance is dated (per Google legal events) 2018-03-14. The first '903-family suit, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (W.D. Tex. 6:19‑cv‑672, filed 2019-11-20), came ~20 months later — outside the 6-month window. (Caveat: the '903 itself does not appear in the asserted-patent lists I retrieved; the asserted members are its continuations — '913, '022, '268, '319, '293, etc. — so the '903 is a foundational parent, not the asserted instrument.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, no 363 sale, no estate transfer appears anywhere in the chain.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company transferring to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the "operating company" and the NPE are the same inventor-controlled family LLC — there is no third-party operating-company benefactor. The record actually shows the inverse arc: Dr. Moskowitz pitched Medtronic (2005–2016), Globus (2015), and others, received a "very low offer" from Globus that he rejected (July 2015 letters), and then sued.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent is asserted, not neutralized.

Related enforcement activity (context, not chain-of-title): Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (E.D. Pa. 2:20‑cv‑03271; original W.D. Tex. 6:19‑cv‑672); Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic et al. (D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769, filed 2025-02-28); Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, filed 2025-06-06). PTAB: IPR2020‑01305 / ‑01307 (Globus), IPR2025‑01598 & IPR2026‑00121 (Medtronic).

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain on the '903 is a clean, inventor-controlled consolidation: four individual inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz (reels 045636/0075; 045997/0805; 046069/0540) → Moskowitz Family LLC (reel 045586/0373; re‑recorded 048237/0270, dated 2018-03-14), with none of the classic troll tells — no third-party shell, no list-matched aggregator, no cascading LLC chain, no bankruptcy, no defensive-aggregator termination. What produces the "NPE" call is that the current assignee, Moskowitz Family LLC, is by its own pleading a non-practicing entity ("created to develop… and protect and license" — it sells no products) that has nonetheless asserted the family against the spine market's largest incumbents (Medtronic, Globus, NuVasive). Because the shell/known-asserter/cascading signals are absent or unverified, this is a single-inventor holding-company assertion profile — moderate, not high, confidence — and not an "operating-company assertion," since the assignee ships no commercial product embodying the claims.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 7942903) · mirror: assignment.uspto.gov/patent. Because I could not obtain the assignment-record correspondent fields or confirm every reel/frame against the '903's own record, treat the reel/frame↔date pairing above as provisional pending Assignment Center confirmation.

I'll research US patent 7942903 and its prior art citations. Let me start with several searches.

Let me get the full citations list from the key sources.

Let me pull the Justia and FPO reference lists for this patent.

Summary of Findings

Important caveats up front (please read):

1. The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated — it ends mid‑sentence in the "Detailed Description" ("…slide up and down the rail inserts 107 on the botto"). It does not contain the issued claims or the "References Cited" section. I therefore cannot quote the claim language or reproduce the applicant/Examiner citation list with 100% fidelity.
2. My searches returned the patent's bibliographic data and several partial citation listings (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents, Justia, Espacenet), but not a complete, verbatim "References Cited" table. Everything below is grounded in those search results; where I am inferring, I say so.
3. Under § 102 an anticipating reference must disclose every element of the claim. For most of these references only partial disclosure is documented, so I flag relevance rather than assert anticipation.

---

1. Confirmed bibliographic data for US 7,942,903 B2

Priority‑date nuance that drives § 102 analysis: the face of the patent lists a prior‑art/priority date of 2005‑04‑12, but the application itself was filed 2007‑08‑21. Whether a given reference is § 102(a)/(b) art (pre‑2005‑04‑12 or pre‑2007‑08‑21) or § 102(e) art (a U.S. filing before the priority date) depends on which claims are entitled to the 2005 provisional. I cannot resolve that without the claim text.

---

2. Primary prior‑art references (from the patent's "U.S. Patent References" listing, as returned by FreePatentsOnline)

These are the references of record with the closest subject‑matter overlap. Claim mapping is by claim family, since I do not have the literal numbering.

3. Secondary/background U.S. references (of record but weaker on the gist)

• US 7,097,615 — Banik et al., "Robotic endoscope with wireless interface" (2006‑08‑29)
• US 7,037,258 — Chatenever et al., "Image orientation for endoscopic video displays" (2006‑05‑02)
• US 7,030,904 — Adair et al., "Reduced area imaging device incorporated within wireless endoscopic devices" (2006‑04‑18)
• US 6,955,671 — Uchikubo, "Remote surgery support system" (2005‑10‑18)
• US 6,904,308 — Frisch et al., "Array system and method for locating an in vivo signal source" (2005‑06‑07)
• US 2004/0177531 — DiBenedetto et al., "Intelligent footwear systems" (2004‑09‑16) — appears unrelated to spinal fusion; likely cited for a general electronics/sensor teaching.
• US 2005/0273170 — Navarro et al., "Prosthetic intervertebral spinal disc with integral microprocessor" (2005‑12‑08)
• US 2005/0216084 — Fleischmann, "Collapsible, rotatable, and tiltable hydraulic spinal disc prosthesis system…" (2005‑09‑29)
• US 2004/0254644 — Taylor, "Intervertebral disk prosthesis" (2004‑12‑16)
• US 6,770,094 — Fehling et al., "Intervertebral disc prosthesis" (2004‑08‑03)
• US 6,733,532 — Gauchet et al., "Intervertebral disc prosthesis with improved mechanical behavior" (2004‑05‑11)
• US 6,629,998 — (assignee/title not recovered in my searches)

These are the "background of the art" citations typical of a spinal‑fusion application; individually they do not appear to anticipate the bi‑directional sliding‑box screw claims.

4. Non‑patent literature and corresponding applications of record

From the Unified Patents listing for the US 2008/0033440 A1 / US 7,942,903 family:

• International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion, 21 May 2008, PCT/US2007/021015.
• International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion, 3 Dec 2007, PCT/US 07/05005.
• International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion, 9 Jul 2008, PCT/US2007/021013.
• Dieter Grob et al., "Clinical Experience With the Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine," Spine, vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, pp. 324–331. (Relevant to the "flexible fusion" argument in the specification.)
• Richard D. Guyer et al., "Intervertebral Disc Prostheses," Spine Journal, vol. 28, No. 15S, Supp. to Aug. 1, 2003, pp. S15–S23.
• Vincent C. Traynelis, "Prosthetics and Biologics: The Wave of the Future," Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 50 (2003), Ch. 9, pp. 207–219.
• E.K. Wai et al., "Disk Replacement Arthroplasties: Can the Success of Hip and Knee Replacements be Repeated in the Spine?" Seminars in Spine Surgery, vol. 15, No. 4, Dec. 2003, pp. 473–482.

These are cited to frame the problem (pedicle‑screw morbidity, disc arthroplasty, flexible fusion), not as structural anticipation.

5. Family relatives (NOT § 102 prior art to this patent)

The following are same‑family continuation/divisional relatives and are therefore not prior art against US 7,942,903: US 11/536,815 (US 7,846,188), US 11/208,644 (US 7,704,279), and the many later Moskowitz continuations (e.g., US 7,972,363, US 8,257,370, US 8,353,913, US 8,734,516). Likewise the specification's own statement that the lumbar facet staple was previously described in Ser. Nos. 11/536,815 and 11/208,644 describes a self‑family relationship, not third‑party art.

6. Assessment — "most relevant prior art"

On the record available to me, the references with the greatest potential § 102 exposure are:

1. US 6,972,019 (Michelson) — interbody implant with bone‑screw fixation: most relevant to the apparatus/box‑plus‑screw claim family.
2. US 6,723,126 / US 2004/0088054 (Berry) and US 6,641,614 (Wagner) — expandable/height‑adjustable interbody devices: most relevant to the "adjuster for adjusting the height of the sliding boxes" and expandable‑box limitations.
3. US 7,211,112 / US 2005/0177235 (Baynham) — spinal fusion device with fixation elements: relevant to the box + screw‑member claims.
4. US 2005/0049590 (Alleyne) — implant with securement spikes: relevant to the ridge/spike and facet‑staple claim families.
5. US 2005/0027362 (Williams) and US 7,211,112 (Baynham) — anchorage of interbody implants.

7. Where I could not complete the analysis

• I could not retrieve the literal claim set of US 7,942,903 in this session, so I cannot state which numbered claims (e.g., claim 1 vs. claim 12) a reference anticipates, nor distinguish independent from dependent claims. The mapping above is to claim families derived from the Abstract/Summary, not to verified claim numbers.
• I could not retrieve the complete foreign‑patent‑documents list for this patent (the FPO snippet truncated at US 6,629,998). A "Foreign Patent References" table almost certainly exists and would need to be checked against the tool/staple claims.
• I could not confirm the filing dates of the § 102(e)‑candidate publications (notably Magerl US 2007/0213820), which must be checked to determine whether they predate 2005‑04‑12 or 2007‑08‑21.
• No anticipation conclusion is warranted from this dataset alone: § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every claimed element in the same arrangement, and the references above each appear to disclose only a subset of the bi‑directional, sliding, height‑adjustable screw‑box combination.

Recommended next step for a definitive answer: pull the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" / "Patent Family" tab and the full claim set for US 7,942,903 (and its parent 11/536,815 / US 7,846,188), then map each citation element‑by‑element against the issued claims. If you want, I can re‑run focused searches on individual references (e.g., the exact filing dates of the Magerl publication and the full foreign‑reference table) using the remaining budget.

I'll start by gathering the prior-art references associated with this patent and the field.

I have useful context. Let me now retrieve the specific prior-art/citation lists for this patent and any IPR/litigation prior-art combos.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,942,903 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Evidence basis and a candid limitation up front

What the page actually provides as "Prior Art." The Google Patents record for US 7,942,903 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7942903B2](/patent/US7942903B2)/en) as fetched does not contain an enumerated "References Cited" list. What it does contain under prior-art metadata is:

• Prior-art keywords: "screw; triangular portion; sliding; self; sliding triangular"
• Priority chain treated as prior art under § 120/§ 119(e): US 11/208,644 filed 2005‑08‑23 (issued as US 7,704,279 B2) and US 11/536,815 filed 2006‑09‑29 (issued as US 7,846,188 B2), plus provisional US 60/670,231 filed 2005‑04‑12.
• Priority date 2005‑04‑12; filing date 2007‑08‑21; grant 2011‑05‑17.
• External links to USPTO, Espacenet, and a Darts‑IP family-litigation entry ("Family has litigation").

Because the fetched page lacks a citation table, I retrieved a candidate prior-art corpus from the machine-readable citation list attached to a family member (US 10,076,367 B2, via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[10076367](/patent/10076367)-B2) and from a Moskowitz-family search-report record (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/99/a1/9e/160153d4d08293/[US11376136](/patent/US11376136).pdf). I have not verified the full disclosure of most of these references. Where I characterize a reference below, I say whether I am relying on its title/classification only (low confidence) or on text I retrieved (higher confidence). I did not retrieve the granted claim set of US 7,942,903 verbatim; I analyze the claim clusters as summarized in the patent's own specification paragraphs ("in one general aspect…"), which mirror the granted claims but must be verified against the printed claims.

Governing law. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable variations, known technique/known purpose, design incentives, "obvious to try"). The critical-date art is that before 2005‑04‑12 (or, for matter added only in the 2006/2007 CIPs, before the later filing dates — claim-by-claim priority must be checked).

---

1. Claim-cluster decomposition

The specification's claim summary yields six distinct invention clusters:

Two structural features recur and drive the analysis: (i) bone screws passing through an interbody spacer and angling into superior and inferior vertebral bodies in opposite (bi-directional) directions, and (ii) an expandable/modular spacer body that also serves as bone-graft containment.

---

2. Candidate prior-art references and proposed combinations

Combination 1 — Cluster A (expandable screw box with bi-directional transvertebral screws)

Primary: an expandable interbody fusion cage with a threaded height adjuster.

• US 2004/0088054 A1, "Laterally Expandable Cage" (priority 2002‑11‑01).
• US 2005/0278026 A1, "Expandable Intervertebral Implant with Wedged Expansion Member" (Flexuspine; priority 2003‑08‑05).
• US 2004/0186569 A1, "Height Adjustable Vertebral Body and Disc Space Replacement Devices" (SDGI; priority 2003‑03‑20).

Confidence: titles and classifications only; I did not read the disclosures. On the face of the titles these teach the core of Cluster A's "first and second sliding boxes… adjuster for adjusting the height," i.e., a two-part body that slides apart under a threaded/wedged drive. The claimed "triangular" geometry with "sliding rail" and "rail inserts" is a predictable geometric variation of a known sliding expander (KSR; In re Rose — shape/configuration changes absent new function).

Secondary: a transvertebral screw that passes through an implant into the vertebral body.

• US 6,974,480 B2, "Intervertebral Implant for Transforaminal Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure" (DePuy; priority 2001‑05‑03).
• US 2005/0177235 A1, "Spinal Fusion Device" (Atlas Spine; priority 2004‑02‑10).
• US 6,436,106, "Anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with locking plate" (retrieved at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6432106](/patent/US6432106)).
• US 7,033,394 B2, "Interbody Spinal Fusion Implants with End Cap for Locking Vertebral Body Penetrating Members" (priority 1999‑05‑05) — a multi-lock for locking opposed, vertebral-body-penetrating members, which is structurally very close to "screws angling in opposite directions through a spacer."

Motivation to combine (explicit): Both references address the same field (interbody fusion) and the same recognized problem stated in the patent itself: "Complications of all current spinal interbody fusion devices is their lack of coverage of the majority of the cross‑sectional area of the vertebral endplates, and their lack of adequate, if any capacity to penetrate bone, and hence the heightened risk of implant extrusion." A PHOSITA seeking to prevent extrusion and provide stand-alone fusion has a finite, predictable set of options — a plate, pedicle screws, or fixation members that pass through the spacer itself. Combining a known expandable spacer with a known through-the-spacer bone screw is the combination of two known techniques, each used for its known function, yielding a predictable result (KSR; MPEP 2143).

Motivation for the opposed/angled orientation: the patent itself concedes that the prior co-pending applications (US 7,704,279 / US 7,846,188) already turned "a rostral oriented screw into the cephalad vertebral body, and a caudal directed screw into the caudal vertebral body." The 25° angulation is disclosed as an example ("can be designed with the internalized drill guides with different angles and/or different positions"), squarely a design choice under KSR (predictable, finite number of identified solutions).

The "gearless" recitation is not saving. The pre‑2005 gearing (worm drive + spur gear) appears in the applicant's own earlier applications; eliminating it is an omission of a component and its function with no change in the claimed operation — a recognized design-simplification rationale.

---

Combination 2 — Cluster B (non-expandable box, two opposing screws, ridges, graft holes)

Primary: US 5,405,391 A, "Fusion Stabilization Chamber" (priority 1993‑02‑16), together with US 4,554,914 A, "Prosthetic Vertebral Body" (Kapp, 1983) and US 4,599,086 A, "Spine Stabilization Device and Method" (Doty, 1985).

Confidence: titles only. On their titles, these teach the hollow chamber for bone graft / graft material that is stabilized to adjacent vertebrae by penetrating members — the functional core of Cluster B. The claimed "perforations/holes for bone graft" and "ridges on the sides" are conventional anchoring/texturing features classified in A61F 2002/30772 (apertures), A61F 2002/30879 (ribs), and A61F 2002/30904 (serrated profile) — i.e., the art itself treats these as standard spacer surface features.

Secondary: FR 2,727,003 (1996) and WO 2004/093749 appear on the face of the family's own later patents as cited art; both are spacers/fixation devices in this space. Confidence: low; verify contents.

---

Combination 3 — Cluster C (two boxes joined by a plate or circumferential cage)

Primary: US 6,436,106 ("…cage with locking plate") + US 6,224,602 B1, "Bone Stabilization Plate with a Secured‑locking Mechanism for Cervical Fixation" (1999‑10‑11) + US 2010/0145460 A1, "Zero‑profile Interbody Spacer and Coupled Plate Assembly" (2008‑11‑07).

Motivation: preventing extrusion and guarding against graft migration is a stated, long-felt goal; anchoring two interbody elements to a common plate or capturing them in a ring/cage against a recess is a known mechanical expedient. The patent's own "two‑in‑one" plate and "2 in 1" circumferential cage are described purely by their function (barrier + retention), which is exactly what the cited plate/cage art discloses. KSR: "known technique, known purpose."

Note: reference dates matter — US 8,137,405 B2 (K2M, 2008) and US 8,613,376/US 2010/0145460 (2008) post‑date 2005‑04‑12 and therefore are § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e) art only for claims whose effective filing date is the 2007‑08‑21 or later CIP date, not for the 2005‑04‑12 priority claims.

---

Combination 4 — Cluster D (gripper/screw-guide/key/flexible-shaft driver)

Primary: US 7,776,047 B2, "Guide for Spinal Tools, Implants, and Devices" (DePuy Spine; priority 2003‑04‑09), in combination with US 4,997,432 A, "Surgical Instrument Set" (1988‑03‑23), and US 5,667,472 A, "Surgical Instrument and Method for Use with a Viewing System" (Clarus; 1994‑03‑18).

Confidence: modest on US 7,776,047 (title supports a spinal tool guide), low on the others. A screw guide that fixes the trajectory of a screw into a vertebral body is the express purpose of spinal drill/screw guides; a spring-biased gripper with prongs mating into grooves is a routine detent/locating mechanism; an Allen key driving a threaded adjuster is the very adjuster disclosed in Combination 1's expandable cage art, so the key is an obvious accessory ("a key to turn the screw I already claimed").

Gap to flag honestly: I did not locate a pre‑2005 reference teaching a screwdriver with a flexible drive shaft for spinal screw placement. The specification justifies it as avoiding the spinous process — a stated problem with an art-recognized mechanical solution (flexible-shaft drives are old and ubiquitous). If no art is found, this sub-feature is the strongest § 103 fallback for the tool cluster; if flexible-shaft drivers for bone screws are located in A61B 17/88 (screwdrivers/spanners), the cluster is fully met.

---

Combination 5 — Clusters E and F (facet staples)

Critical admission. The patent states the lumbar facet staple "has been thoroughly described in our previous co‑pending patent application Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed on Sep. 29, 2006, and Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed on Aug. 23, 2005… incorporated by reference." Those applications issued as US 7,846,188 B2 and US 7,704,279 B2. This is an applicant admission that every element of Cluster F except the ratchet is prior art to itself.

Cluster F (ratchet): the only added element is an incremental ratchet/one-way clamping mechanism for progressively closing a two-arm staple. Ratcheting clamps, surgical staplers, and one-way locking mechanisms are ubiquitous in the surgical arts — e.g., US 5,005,749 A, "Anastomosis Surgical Stapling Instrument" (1988‑07‑01) and US 7,727,246 B2, "Methods for Endoluminal Treatment" (Ethicon; 2000‑12‑06), both appearing on the family's own citation record. Replacing a discrete closing mechanism with a ratchet to obtain calibrated, incremental, irreversible closure is the paradigmatic "known technique, known purpose, predictable result" combination.

Cluster E (cervical facet staple): a curved base plate with bone-penetrating prongs is the definition of a bone staple — classified expressly at A61B 17/0642 ("Surgical staples… for bones, e.g. for osteosynthesis") and A61B 2017/0641 (three-plus legs) and A61B 2017/0647–0648 (single-leg/tack) — all of which are among the classifications assigned to this very patent. Applying a known bone staple to the facet joint, and using a known impactor with wings and a threaded coupling, is an application of a known technique to a new but analogous and obvious locus, particularly since the applicant's own prior applications already taught the lumbar facet staple. KSR: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."

---

3. Consolidated motivation rationales (KSR-articulable)

1. Same field / same problem. All references are interbody or facet fusion devices addressing extrusion, subsidence, and graft migration — the very problems the patent recites.
2. Known technique, known purpose. Screws through a spacer into vertebral bodies; hollow graft chambers; textured/ridged spacer surfaces; ratcheting clamps; bone staples with prongs.
3. Predictable variations. Sliding/expandable spacers, threaded height adjusters, triangular geometry, 25° (±) guide angles, 2‑prong vs. 4‑prong staples — all disclosed as interchangeable design choices by the patent itself.
4. Design incentive / finite solutions. A PHOSITA seeking to avoid pedicle-screw morbidity (the patent's own stated motivation) would predictably choose "fixate through the interbody device."
5. Omission of elements and their function. Eliminating the worm drive/spur gear relative to US 7,704,279 / US 7,846,188.
6. Applicant's own description of the art. The "DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT ART" section is a roadmap of the art-recognized problems and prior solutions, usable as an admission.

---

4. Anticipation-adjacent and secondary-consideration notes

• Single-reference § 102 risk is highest for the facet-staple claims: US 7,704,279 / US 7,846,188 were incorporated by reference and are in the same family; whether they anticipate rather than merely render obvious depends on whether they disclose the specific curved-base/prong/threaded-insert combination now claimed. I could not verify this from full text — flag for verification.
• Secondary considerations would need: (a) a nexus between any commercial embodiment and the claims; (b) evidence of unexpected results (the "flexible fusion" argument is a design intent, not a demonstrated unexpected result); (c) long-felt need / failure of others documented as of 2005. The specification asserts clinical advantages in argumentative terms ("it is believed that…") — that is attorney argument, not evidence (In re Geisler; In re Kao).
• Procedural context: the family records show IPR activity (Petitions IPR2020‑01303 through IPR2020‑01308) directed at Moskowitz patents including US 8,353,913 and US 9,889,022 — see the exhibit index at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/99/a1/9e/160153d4d08293/US11376136.pdf. These IPRs turned in part on Wiseman et al., "Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion," Ch. 39, and Grob et al., "Clinical Experience With the Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine," Spine 30(3):324–331 (2005) — both usable as secondary/background references (Dynesys as evidence that semi-rigid, facet-preserving fixation was known). The same document lists ISR/Written Opinion dated 2007‑12‑03 for PCT/US 07/05005, 2008‑07‑09 for PCT/US2007/021013 (i.e., the PCT counterpart of the instant application), and 2008‑05‑21 for PCT/US2007/021015 — these search reports identify the art the examiner actually considered and should be pulled before relying on this analysis.

---

5. Bottom line

• Clusters A, B, C are, on the face of the retrieved citation record, obvious over (i) expandable/height-adjustable interbody cages (US 2004/0088054, US 2005/0278026, US 2004/0186569) in view of (ii) implants with vertebral-body-penetrating fixation members (US 6,436,106, US 6,974,480, US 2005/0177235, US 7,033,394), and further in view of (iii) plate/cage-based retention (US 6,224,602, US 2010/0145460), with the KSR rationales above.
• Cluster D is obvious over spinal tool guides (US 7,776,047) plus routine mechanical expedients, except for the flexible-shaft driver, for which I found no reference and which therefore remains the strongest non-obviousness candidate.
• Clusters E and F are the most vulnerable overall, because the applicant's own prior applications already disclosed the facet staple and calibrated stapling, leaving only the ratchet and the cervical (vs. lumbar) application as the delta — both classic KSR variations over known stapling/clamping art.

Verification checklist before filing any § 103 challenge: (1) obtain the printed claims of US 7,942,903 B2 verbatim; (2) pull full texts of US 4,599,086, US 4,554,914, US 5,405,391, US 6,436,106, US 6,974,480, US 2004/0088054, US 2005/0278026, US 2004/0186569, US 6,224,602, US 7,776,047, FR 2,727,003, WO 2004/093749; (3) pull the PCT/US2007/021013 ISR and the file wrapper to see what art was actually applied and argued; (4) confirm the effective filing date of each claim (2005‑04‑12 priority vs. 2006/2007 CIP matter), since several otherwise-useful references post-date the priority date.