US 9848998

I'll verify the patent's bibliographic record and check for any 2026 CAFC docket activity tied to this specific number.

Let me verify the assignee of record, the independent-claim text, and any 2026 court/appeal docket naming this exact number.

US Patent 9,848,998 — Verified Summary

Scope note. I searched for the exact string "9848998"/"9,848,998" (not similar numbers) across the USPTO-derived records and 2026 court/appeal materials. Findings below are grounded in: the authoritative Google Patents text you supplied, the PubChem record for US-9848998-B2, uspto.report for grant 9,848,998, the Federal Circuit opinion in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696, and USPTO/PTAB petition records that list application 15/054,926. Where I lack authority, I say so.

1. Bibliographic record

Claim count and terminal disclaimer: I could not confirm from authoritative sources the number of granted claims, nor whether the '998 carries a terminal disclaimer or PTA. I decline to state either. (The sibling US 9,889,022 B2 has 70 claims/38 sheets and a 278-day PTA with a terminal disclaimer — but those are the '022's attributes, not the '998's.)

2. USPTO / 2026 CAFC docket check for this exact number

• CAFC 2026 dockets naming 9,848,998: none found. The specific query returned no Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 (or any year) naming the '998 patent. The prominent 2026 Moskowitz Federal Circuit decision is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696, and it concerns the '913, '022, and '319 patents — not the '998. Its claim excerpts (e.g., '022 claim 47; the "tool assembly … first/second engagement prongs … adjusting screw" claim) are family members' claims, not the '998's.
• 2026 PTAB activity in the family exists — e.g., an Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC proceeding IPR2026-00285 appears in 2026 dockets (its Exhibit 1044 is the '022 patent). I did not find any 2026 petition naming the '998. Consistent with the earlier-generated PTAB section, I treat the '998 as untested at the Board, with the caveat that I could not exhaustively query PTAB E2E by application number 15/054,926.
• USPTO records linking 15/054,926 ↔ '998 do appear in PTAB petition exhibits (e.g., petition 1558745/1558746 in the 2018 timeframe) as table entries; that confirms the bibliographic pairing but is not evidence of a proceeding on the '998 itself.

3. Abstract (verbatim, from the record)

"A tool assembly includes a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer for insertion into a disc space between a first vertebral body and a second vertebral body and fusion of the first vertebral body to the second vertebral body via biological bone fusion and screw fusion, and a tool for manipulating and inserting the universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer into the disc space between the first vertebral body and the second vertebral body to provide fusion of the first vertebral body to the second vertebral body via biological bone fusion and screw fusion."

(Note: the sibling '022 carries a different abstract — the "self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus … first and second sliding boxes" text. Do not merge the two.)

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Explicit uncertainty: the full patent text provided to me is truncated after the Detailed Description and contains no claims section. I therefore cannot quote or enumerate the '998's granted independent claims, and I will not fabricate them. What I can do is describe, in plain language, the independent-claim subject matter the record indicates, flagged by source.

(a) What the abstract and the "Definitions"/Summary passages point to. The '998 specification's Summary sets out discrete "general aspect[s]," each of which conventionally mirrors an independent claim. Read plainly, they describe these independent claim categories:

1. A self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus — first and second sliding boxes; a screw (tapered end, threaded body) in each box; and an adjuster (e.g., a screw) that changes the boxes' height so the two screws are driven in opposing (bi-directional) directions into superior and inferior vertebral bodies. Boxes may be triangular, with sliding rails, ridged (bone-engaging) surfaces, and bone-graft holes.
2. A second self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus — a single box holding two laterally aligned screws, with ridges along the box sides; optionally attachable to a second such apparatus via a plate.
3. A third self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus — first box + first screw, second box + second screw, and an attachment member joining the boxes, where that member may be a plate or a circumferential cage with a recess holding the boxes (e.g., interference fit).
4. A tool assembly for manipulating such an apparatus — a handle, a gripper with prongs, and a screw guide held by the prongs that controls the direction of the self-drilling screws (optionally including a key for the height adjuster and a driver assembly with a flexible drive shaft).
5. A cervical facet staple — a curved staple base, at least two (or four) prongs on its bottom surface, and an insertion member (e.g., threaded insert) on its top surface.
6. An impaction tool for the cervical facet staple — handle, stem, wings to seat the staple base, and an insertion member coupling the staple to the tool.
7. A lumbar facet staple — a pair of rotating arms, prongs on the inner surfaces, spurs on one arm, and a ratchet on one arm, so the arms rotate to a closed position to staple a lumbar facet joint.

(b) What the abstract most resembles. The '998's own abstract is framed as a "tool assembly" combining (i) a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer and (ii) a tool for manipulating and inserting it. That structure tracks the family's "tool for manipulating and inserting a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer" claim line (cf. '913 claim 1, as quoted in the Globus appeal: "…a gripper having a plurality of prongs… a screw guide … positioned between the plurality of prongs"). So the '998's claim 1 is most likely a tool-assembly/spacer claim of that general type — but I have not verified the '998's verbatim claim 1, and it may instead or additionally include the apparatus, staple, and impaction-tool claims listed above.

Practical bottom line for a reader: the '998 is a continuation in the Moskowitz spinal-fusion family and is directed to (1) bi-directional transvertebral screw/box fusion devices with bone-fusion-spacer function and insertion instrumentation, and (2) calibrated cervical/lumbar facet stapling devices with impaction tooling. Its exact independent-claim boundaries require the granted claims, which were not available to me.

5. Contradictions and caveats to flag

1. Date contradiction (flagged, not reconciled). This task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," yet the previously generated Litigation and PTAB sections cite a Federal Circuit opinion dated 2026-09-11 and a state of affairs "as of 2026-09-28." Both cannot be true. Per the standing rule, I flag it rather than auto-correct it. It does not change any bibliographic fact above.
2. Assignee ambiguity. uspto.report states the '998 is "currently assigned to Nathan C. Moskowitz," while the later recorded assignment (2018-03-14, reel 045586/0373) and Google Patents' "Moskowitz Family LLC" entry indicate the LLC is the current owner. I treat the LLC as current owner, with uspto.report as stale — but this should be confirmed on USPTO Assignment Center.
3. No claims in the supplied authoritative text. All independent-claim descriptions above are drawn from the specification's Summary/abstract and same-family claims, not from the '998's granted claims. Treat the claim overview as an investigative lead, not a verified claim chart.
4. Do not conflate the '998 with its siblings. The '022 (70 claims, terminal disclaimer, 278-day PTA), the '913, the '319, the '740, the '643, the '367, the '386, and publication US 2022/0218498 A1 are different documents; their content must not be attributed to the '998.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9848998 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving this patent and its owner.

Let me check the litigation databases directly and search for the specific patent in court dockets.

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 9,848,998

Bottom line

Based on my searches of patent-litigation databases and court records, I could not identify any lawsuit or other contested proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 9,848,998 ("the '998 patent") was itself asserted, challenged, or otherwise named as a patent-in-suit. I am stating this as a limitation of my search, not as a certified clearance — see the caveats below.

The searches returned extensive litigation involving the patent's owner (Moskowitz Family LLC) and closely related patents in the same family, but in every complaint or exhibit I could retrieve, the asserted patent numbers were family members (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; 10,478,319; 9,005,293; 9,907,674; the "'505" patent; 8,846,188-family members, etc.) — not 9,848,998.

What the searches did surface (related, not the '998 patent)

Important caveats

1. None of these cases lists the '998 patent as asserted. I confirmed this by reviewing the actual complaint text and claim-construction briefs retrieved in the search (including the Globus W.D. Tex. complaint No. 19-cv-672, the Medtronic D. Minn. No. 25-cv-769 complaint, and the Fed. Cir. appeal No. 24-1696 opinion), none of which reference "9,848,998" or "9,848,998."

2. The Google Patents page for US 9,848,998 displays a "Family has litigation" indicator pointing to Darts-IP family ID 39269006. This means the patent family has been involved in litigation somewhere in the world — but the indicator is family-level, not patent-level, and it does not establish that the '998 patent itself was asserted.

3. This is not a definitive "no litigation" conclusion. My search was limited and did not exhaustively query PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or the Unified Patents litigation caselist for the specific number. It is possible that:

   • The '998 patent was named in a later amended complaint, infringement contention, or a non-U.S. proceeding I did not retrieve;
   • It was the subject of a PTAB filing not captured in the results.

   Verifying absence would require a direct, patent-number-specific query on PACER and the Unified Patents / RPX / Docket Navigator caselists.

Recommendation

To definitively confirm whether the '998 patent has ever been asserted, run a patent-number-exact query on:

• Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist)
• PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina (search "9,848,998" as a patent-in-suit)
• PTAB (for any IPR/PGR naming the '998 patent)

If you would like, I can attempt targeted follow-up searches against those specific sources in a new research round.

I'll start by verifying the structured-block default against the public record via web search, since the ODP ingest may lag.

Let me run targeted queries on the '998 patent specifically and on Moskowitz PTAB activity.

Let me confirm whether any IPR petition names the '998 patent, and map the broader Moskowitz PTAB campaign.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,848,998: 0 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The USPTO ODP structured block returns an empty proceedings list, and my independent web checks (Globus/Moskowitz IPR petitions, Medtronic 2025 petitions, PTAB docket aggregators, CAFC coverage) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '998 patent. Bottom line for a defendant: the '998 patent has never been tested at the PTAB — there is no FWD canceling claims and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel anywhere in this file. But the more important defensive fact is not PTAB-related: per the structured record, the '998 patent's anticipated expiration is 2025-08-23 and its legal status is "Expired - Lifetime", meaning that as of today (2026-09-28) it is likely an expired patent — a far stronger posture for a defendant than any IPR outcome.

Confidence note: I could not exhaustively query PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm for every possible petition number, so I state the absence with moderate-to-high confidence, not certainty. The structured ODP block is the canonical source here, and it says "no PTAB activity on file." Treat that as the operative fact and re-verify on PTAB E2E before filing anything.

No proceedings on US 9,848,998

There is no proceeding to report. Rather than fabricate one, here is the negative finding, stated precisely:

• No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming US 9,848,998 appears in the ODP structured data or in the public materials I searched.
• No Final Written Decision, institution decision, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal exists for this patent.
• No claim of the '998 patent has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board.

Why this posture arises. The '998 patent is one node in a very large Moskowitz continuation family (priority to provisional 60/670,231, 2005-04-12; § 120 chain through 11/208,644 → 11/536,815 → 11/842,855 → 7,942,903 → later continuations). Challengers have gone after sibling patents, not this one — see the adjacent context below.

Adjacent context — related-family PTAB activity (NOT proceedings on '998)

These are flagged only to show the litigation/PTAB ecosystem, and must not be cited as proceedings on the '998 patent:

• Globus Medical's 2020 IPR wave — Globus filed concurrent IPR petitions against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; 10,307,268; 10,478,319; 10,251,643; and 10,028,740, all commonly owned by Moskowitz and all stemming from the same specification. See the Globus petitions on PTAB E2E (petition 1539286, '913 patent) and petition 1539287, '022 patent. Grounds were § 103 (e.g., Waugh in view of Fanger; Tisserand in view of Bonutti), with Dr. Jorge Ochoa as expert. The '998 patent was not on that list.
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, IPR2025-01598 — filed 2025-09-29 against U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293 (not the '998 patent). Notable procedural detail reflecting the current institution climate: the Board's docket shows a "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer" entry dated 2026-01-27 following Patent Owner's discretionary-denial brief and Petitioner's opposition. Track docket: Docket Alarm — IPR2025-01598. The underlying district court case is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., D. Minn. 25-cv-769.
• The Moskowitz portfolio is under active assertion against multiple device makers (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive, ZimVie), so additional family IPRs — potentially including one against '998 — are plausible in 2026–2027.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For US 9,848,998 specifically, every claim is UNTESTED: no claim has been canceled, and no claim has been held patentable by the Board. There is therefore no "clean" claim set to build an infringement case on and no PTAB record to attack. Two caveats a defendant must confirm: (1) I could not verify the '998 claim set from the source text provided (the Google Patents scrape included in this file has no claims section), and (2) the sibling patents in this family have taken serious damage in district court, not the PTAB — in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (a) construed "universal" as "an intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed to be inserted between [vertebrae/vertebral bodies] in any region of the spine, i.e., cervical, thoracic, or lumbar, using any approach, e.g., posterior, anterior, or lateral," (b) held the "universal" preambles limiting and granted summary judgment of noninfringement on the '913 and '022 patents, and (c) entered a defense jury verdict of no infringement on claim 1 of the '319 patent, with JMOL denied. The Federal Circuit affirmed in full on 2026-09-11 in a precedential opinion. See Fed. Cir. opinion, No. 2024-1696; Fed Circuit Blog summary; IPWatchdog analysis; District court JMOL opinion (CourtListener). The '998 patent shares this family's specification, its "universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer" language appears in the abstract and Definitions section, and I would expect the Globus "universal" construction to be portable — but I have not verified that '998's own claims recite "universal," so treat that as an investigative lead, not a conclusion.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no IPR on the '998 patent, no petitioner is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent, and no IPR-based estoppel constrains a current defendant's invalidity case. Conversely, the patent owner has no IPR record to hide behind — the full prior-art universe, including art that appeared in the Globus and Medtronic petitions against sibling patents (Waugh, Fanger, Neumann, Tisserand, Bonutti, Mathieu, Brantigan, Messerli, Byrd, Allen, Baynham, McLuen, Chung), remains available as § 102/§ 103 district-court grounds against '998 to the extent it qualifies as prior art against the '998 priority chain. Note the § 315(b) one-year clock only runs from service of a complaint asserting this patent; if a demand letter (not a complaint) is what you have, no bar has started.

Pattern signals. The same petitioner (Globus) filed a six-patent simultaneous wave rather than targeting one patent — the classic response to portfolio-wide assertion. The patent owner, Moskowitz Family LLC, litigates aggressively and broadly (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive, ZimVie) but has not, so far as I can find, had to defend the '998 patent at the Board. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in this chain. And note the regime shift: since 2025 the PTAB has moved to Director-controlled institution with expanded discretionary-denial factors (revived Fintiv, "settled expectations," serial-challenge concerns), and institution rates have fallen from roughly 60–70% to roughly 30–40%. For a long-lived patent like '998 (2005 priority), a "settled expectations" denial is a realistic outcome — see Nat'l L. Rev., "Changes to PTAB and Takeaways for Life Sciences Stakeholders," 2026-09-24. The Medtronic docket entry showing a Director referral on discretionary denial in IPR2025-01598 is a live example in this very family.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build an IPR strategy around '998 without first checking expiration. The structured record lists anticipated expiration 2025-08-23 with status "Expired - Lifetime." If that holds (verify against the face of the patent, any PTA certificate, and any terminal disclaimer), the patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief, and damages are limited to pre-expiration infringement within the § 286 six-year lookback from the filing of suit (i.e., roughly back to 2020-09-28 for a complaint filed today). Pull the USPTO PatentCenter record and an up-to-date PTAB E2E search before spending on a petition.
2. Verify there is truly no petition on '998. Run a PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm search filtered to patent 9,848,998 and to the '998's application number 15/054,926. If you find one that ODP has not ingested, it must be pulled to the top of this analysis immediately — my conclusion is based on a non-exhaustive search plus an empty canonical list.
3. If you are a defendant and validity is in play, work the district-court angle before the PTAB angle. The Moskowitz v. Globus precedential opinion is directly useful: it (a) makes "universal" preambles limiting, (b) adopts a construction Moskowitz itself conceded it could not meet, and (c) affirms a defense jury verdict on a "cooperating" limitation. Get the '998 claim set in hand and test whether its independent claims carry the same "universal" preamble and the same structural-limitation dependencies the Federal Circuit found dispositive. If they do, a Globus-style § 112/claim-construction and noninfringement attack may be cheaper and faster than an IPR.
4. If you do file an IPR, plan for the new discretionary gauntlet. Anticipate a Patent Owner discretionary-denial brief asserting Fintiv (parallel D. Minn./E.D. Pa. style litigation), "settled expectations" for a 2005-priority patent, and Office-error/§ 325(d) arguments (Moskowitz has shown it will marshal Office actions and IDS exhibits, as in IPR2025-01598). A Sotera-style stipulation and an early-FWD showing help, but under the 2025–2026 practice are not dispositive.
5. Calendar check. With no active proceeding on '998, there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no 1-year FWD deadline to track. If any petition on '998 is filed later, the § 316(a)(11) clock runs one year from the institution date, and the § 315(b) bar runs one year from service of a complaint asserting the '998 patent.

Disclaimer: I have not verified the '998 claim text, the PTA/terminal-disclaimer status, or the absence of an unindexed petition. Every statement above is grounded either in the structured ODP block, the authoritative patent text supplied in this file, or the specific public sources linked. Nothing here should be filed or relied on as a legal conclusion without confirming the docket on PTAB E2E and CourtListener.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,848,998, focusing on reel/frame numbers, correspondents, and the ownership chain.

The first hit is a 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement — but it names inventors (Sugalski, Schoon) who are not on the '998, so I must verify which patent it belongs to before using those reel/frames. Let me dig further.

Let me verify whether the reel/frame sets I found belong to the '998 or a different family member, and search for the '998's own recording data.

Assignment / Ownership Analysis — US 9,848,998 B2

Sourcing limitation up front (read before using any number below). The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and its legacy mirror (assignment.uspto.gov) were not directly queryable within this research pass. What I can state with confidence comes from two places: (a) the legal-events block on the authoritative Google Patents record for US 9,848,998 supplied in this file, which lists the post-issuance assignment events; and (b) uspto.report's grant page. I could not retrieve the '998-specific reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record fields. I found reel/frame data for sibling Moskowitz patents, but those name inventors (Sugalski, Schoon) who are not on the '998 — so they are a different family node and I have deliberately not attributed them to the '998. Do not treat any reel/frame number as belonging to the '998 unless separately verified at the Assignment Center. See the conflation flags at the end.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern findings.

• No corporate assignee ever appears. The Google Patents record lists the original assignee as "Individual." There is no employer-assignment, no operating company, and no institutional owner anywhere in the recorded chain. This is the opposite of the "all inventors depart the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor — here, there was never a corporate assignee to depart from.
• The inventorship is family-clustered (three Moskowitzes) around one hub inventor who collects the rights of all co-inventors. That is a classic inventor-held, self-consolidated portfolio structure, not an employment-driven one.
• Timing note: the co-inventor→hub assignments (2016-08-03) were recorded ~5 months after the '998's 2016-02-26 continuation filing and ~16 months before grant, i.e., during pendency. This is routine title-cleanup, not distress-driven.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: the uspto.report grant page states "The grantee listed for this patent is Nathan C. Moskowitz" and "currently assigned to Nathan C. Moskowitz"; Google Patents' Original Assignee field reads "Individual." On the face of the record, then, the original assignee is the individual inventor Nathan C. Moskowitz, not a company.
• Product? No. There is no evidence that the original assignee (an individual) shipped any product embodying the claims. The '998 is a tool-assembly / intervertebral-fusion-spacer patent; the only products identified as embodying this family's claims are third-party devices (Globus's COALITION/MONUMENT/Independence lines, per the Nov. 2019 Globus complaint).
• Primary line of business: individual inventor's surgical-device inventions (spinal fusion). No manufacturing operation is associated with the original assignee.
• Current status: N/A for an individual; the successor entity, Moskowitz Family LLC, is active (see below) and is an operating entity only as a patent-holding/assertion vehicle — it does not appear to make or sell spinal implants.
• Current owner of record: Google Patents lists both "Moskowtiz [sic] Nathan C" and "Moskowitz Family LLC" as current assignee; the 2018-03-14 assignment (Nathan → Moskowitz Family LLC) is the later event, so Moskowitz Family LLC is the operative current assignee. This mirrors the discrepancy already flagged in the previously generated Patent summary.

Assignment timeline

Data integrity note. Assignments below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,848,998. The record gives date + assignor + assignee but not reel/frame and not correspondent. I have left those two fields as "not retrieved" rather than inventing values. All four events are recorded dates (Google's convention); execution dates were not available.

• 2016-08-03 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Ahmnon D.
  • Assignee: Moskowtiz, Nathan C. (misspelling is verbatim in the record)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — could not be captured from available sources.
  • Context: Internal title consolidation — co-inventor conveys his undivided interest to the hub inventor during pendency.

• 2016-08-03 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Mosheh T.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal title consolidation — second co-inventor conveys to the hub inventor, same day as the prior entry.

• 2017-11-08 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Alvarado, Pablo A. Valdivia Y
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal title consolidation — last outside co-inventor conveys to the hub inventor, ~6 weeks before the 2017-12-26 grant.

• 2018-03-14 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Transfer to a family holding/assertion LLC — the hub inventor moves the patent (and the portfolio) from personal ownership into Moskowitz Family LLC, the entity that subsequently asserted the portfolio.

Were there Assignment Center records? Yes — the Google Patents legal-events record shows four, listed above. So the "no records — original assignee still owns it" branch does not apply. But I could not pull the actual reel/frame/correspondent entries themselves; treat the four events as documented and the reel/frame/correspondent as unverified.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9848998
    2016 : Filed by Moskowitz inventors
         : Ahmnon assigns rights to N Moskowitz
         : Mosheh assigns rights to N Moskowitz
    2017 : Alvarado assigns rights to N Moskowitz
         : Patent issued
    2018 : Rights to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2019 : First suit filed v Globus Medical

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The recorded chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, a non-practicing, inventor-controlled holding entity that does not ship the claimed product and is a serial plaintiff against spinal-device manufacturers (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive, ZimVie) — one strong signal (Signal 2) plus a qualified shell-entity/assertion-transfer signal (Signal 1) via the 2018-03-14 Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC assignment. The reason this is moderate rather than high: this is consolidation into an inventor's own family vehicle (three co-inventors → hub inventor in 2016–2017, then → LLC in 2018), not a classic third-party troll acquisition, and I was unable to retrieve the '998's reel/frame or correspondent to corroborate recurrence/attorney-pattern signals. Signals 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all not present.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — search by patent number 9,848,998 or application 15/054,926 → https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Conflation flags (do not merge into the '998 record)

1. The reel/frame numbers I did find — 045586/0373, 045636/0075, 045904/0815, 045997/0805, 046069/0540 (37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement), and 048237/0270, 048237/0710, 048237/0758, 048260/0595, 048260/0654, 057014/0629 (US 10,426,633 chain-of-title) — belong to other Moskowitz-family patents whose inventorship includes Sugalski and Schoon, neither of whom is an inventor on the '998. They are NOT the '998's assignments. I include them only to show they exist and to mark them off-limits for the '998.
2. "Scott A. Moskowitz" / Wistaria Trading / Bruce T. Margulies, Reg. No. 64175 is a completely different inventor family and has nothing to do with Nathan C. Moskowitz's spinal portfolio. Do not import Margulies as a "correspondent" for the '998.
3. US 7,995,899 ("899 patent," D. Del. § 101 case) and the agricultural "898" combine-header art are unrelated to US 9,848,998, as already flagged in the Litigation section.

Bottom line on the assignment question: the '998's ownership is documented in four recorded events (2016-08-03 ×2, 2017-11-08, 2018-03-14) running co-inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC, but the reel/frame numbers and correspondents could not be captured from the sources available in this pass and must be pulled directly from the Assignment Center before any filing relies on them.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 9,848,998 specifically. Let me start with targeted searches.

The general searches returned noise. Let me pull the specific citation tables for this exact patent number.

I found the PubChem citation list and Google Patents data. Let me pull the full "Patent Citations" table for this exact patent from Justia and PubChem.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,848,998 B2

IMPORTANT SOURCING NOTE FIRST. I was not able to open the USPTO's own PTO-892 "References Cited" sheet for the '998 itself within my search budget, and the authoritative full text you supplied is truncated — it ends mid-Description and contains no claims section. I therefore could not retrieve the verbatim claim set. Any § 102 mapping below is stated as a claim-category inference, not a literatim claim-by-claim conclusion. I flag every place where I am inferring rather than quoting.

What I can do reliably is reproduce the patent's cited-reference list (the "Patent Citations / References Cited" that Google Patents and PubChem record for US-9848998-B2) and analyze it thematically. That list is large (~230 entries), and it is drawn from:

• PubChem patent record — https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9848998-B2 (Section "9 Citations"), and
• a sibling of the same family, US 9,848,993 (uspto.report), whose citation table shares the same pre-2001 entries and supplies corroborating dates/inventor surnames (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[9848993](/patent/9848993)).

Where the two disagree on a date I flag it. Inventor surnames/dates below for the pre-2001 U.S. references are taken from the sibling citation table (they overlap almost identically); treat them as corroborated-but-secondary.

1. What the USPTO/Gov record shows for 9,848,998

Caution — several search hits matching "9848998"/"898" are NOT this patent and must not be merged into the record:

• The PTO-892 for application 17/706,873 (Art Unit 3773, Examiner Ellen C. Hammond) contains the string "…OR US-9848998-B2 OR…" — that is a PE2E examiner search-string in a different, later Moskowitz application, not a citation against the '998. (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558555](/patent/1558555)/)
• US 5,085,698 and other "…8998" hits are unrelated chemistry/ink patents.

2. The cited references for US 9,848,998 (as recorded)

2.A — Applicant's OWN family references (cited in the '998; NOT true third-party art)

These are the Moskowitz family patents/publications on the face of the '998. Under § 102 they are relevant only as the applicant's own earlier work (relevant for priority/§ 102(e) and double-patenting, not as § 102(b) prior art):

• US 7,704,279 B2 (Moskowitz et al.) — issued 2010-04-27 (parent; 11/208,644, CIP ancestor)
• US 7,942,903 B2 (Moskowitz et al.) — issued 2011-05-17 (11/842,855; direct parent)
• US 8,353,913 B2 (Moskowitz et al.) — issued 2013-01-15 (co-pending sibling)
• Publications: US 2013/0018468 A1; US 2013/0018469 A1; US 2013/0018470 A1; US 2013/0023991 A1; US 2013/0023992 A1; US 2013/0053962 A1; US 2013/0282017 A1; US 2014/0249629 A1; US 2015/0025637 A1; US 2015/0105824 A1; US 2015/0148847 A1; US 2017/0252178 A1; and the '998's own pub. US 2016/0374830 A1.

2.B — Third-party U.S. patents (dates/surnames as recorded)

2,360,942 A — Ellerstein (1944); 4,064,881 A — Meredith, Dec-1977 (surgical clip applicator); 4,554,914 A — Kapp et al., Nov-1985; 4,599,086 A — Doty, Jul-1986; 4,636,217 A — Ogilvie, Jan-1987; 4,904,261 A — Dove et al., Feb-1990; 4,960,420 A — Goble et al., Oct-1990; 4,997,432 A — Keller, Mar-1991; 5,005,749 A — Aranyi, Apr-1991; 5,062,850 A — MacMillan et al., Nov-1991; 5,123,926 A — Pisharodi, Jun-1992; 5,290,312 A — Kojimoto, Mar-1994; 5,405,391 A — Henderson et al., Apr-1995; 5,413,583 A — Wohlers, May-1995; 5,454,819 A — Knoepfler, Oct-1995; 5,514,180 A — Heggeness et al., May-1996; 5,660,188 A — Groiso, Aug-1997; 5,667,472 A — Finn et al., Sep-1997; 5,713,912 A — Porter, Feb-1998; 5,782,832 A — Larsen et al., Jul-1998; 5,865,848 A — Baker, Feb-1999; 5,888,223 A — Bray, Jr., Mar-1999; 5,916,224 A — Esplin, Jun-1999; 5,951,574 A — Stefanchik et al., Sep-1999; 5,960,522 A — Boe, Oct-1999; 5,968,054 A — Yeatts et al., Oct-1999; 5,976,136 A — Bailey et al., Nov-1999; 6,126,689 A — Brett, Oct-2000; 6,224,602 B1 — Hayes, May-2001; 6,235,034 B1 — Bray, May-2001; 6,322,562 B1 — Wolter; 6,342,074 B1 — Simpson, Jan-2002; 6,368,350 B1 — Erickson et al., Apr-2002; 6,375,682 B1 — Fleischmann et al., Apr-2002; 6,419,704 B1 — Ferree, Jul-2002; 6,432,106 B1 — Fraser, Aug-2002; 6,454,807 B1 — Jackson, Sep-2002; 6,458,159 B1 — Thalgott, Oct-2002; 6,527,804 B1 — Gauchet et al., Mar-2003; 6,533,818 B1 — Weber et al., Mar-2003; 6,558,423 B1 — Michelson, May-2003; 6,572,653 B1 — Simonson, Jun-2003; 6,579,318 B2 — Varga et al., Jun-2003; 6,582,468 B1 — Gauchet, Jun-2003; 6,613,055 B2 — Di Emidio, Sep-2003; 6,629,998 B1 — Lin, Oct-2003; 6,641,614 B1 — Wagner et al., Nov-2003; 6,655,243 B2 — Anderson et al., Dec-2003; 6,716,247 B2 — Michelson, Apr-2004; 6,719,794 B2 — Gerber, Apr-2004; 6,723,126 B1 — Berry, Apr-2004; plus (post-2004, cite numbers only) US 6,733,532 B1; 6,764,491 B2; 6,770,094 B2; 6,824,564 B2; 6,852,117 B2; 6,890,355 B2; 6,904,308 B2; 6,953,477 B2; 6,955,671 B2; 6,962,606 B2; 6,972,019 B2; 6,974,480 B2; 7,030,904 B2; 7,033,394 B2; 7,037,258 B2; 7,077,864 B2; 7,097,615 B2; 7,135,043 B2; 7,211,112 B2; 7,232,464 B2; 7,238,203 B2; 7,326,248 B2; 7,442,299 B2; 7,442,209 B2; 7,615,059 B2; 7,618,456 B2; 7,628,816 B2; 7,727,246 B2; 7,758,617 B2; 7,776,047 B2; 7,776,093 B2; 7,803,162 B2; 7,846,207 B2; 7,862,616 B2; 7,875,076 B2; 7,887,591 B2; 7,959,675 B2; 7,972,363 B2; 7,985,255 B2; 8,029,512 B2; 8,034,060 B2; 8,105,367 B2; 8,114,162 B1; 8,137,405 B2; 8,167,949 B2; 8,268,000 B2; 8,273,127 B2; 8,328,851 B2; 8,328,872 B2; 8,403,986 B2; 8,414,651 B2; 8,419,797 B2; 8,425,607 B2; 8,540,774 B2; 8,613,761 B2; 8,728,165 B2; 8,790,405 B2; 8,882,813 B2.

U.S. published applications cited include: US 2002/068977 A1; 2002/143338 A1; 2003/130737 A1; 2004/088054 A1; 2004/177531 A1; 2004/186569 A1; 2004/186482 A1; 2004/193272 A1; 2004/220571 A1; 2004/254644 A1; 2005/027362 A1; 2005/049590 A1; 2005/177235 A1; 2005/216084 A1; 2005/256576 A1; 2005/261769 A1; 2005/273170 A1; 2005/278026 A1; 2006/155285 A1; 2006/241621 A1; 2007/049943 A1; 2007/167678 A1; 2007/198089 A1; 2007/213820 A1; 2007/250172 A1; 2007/250167 A1; 2007/276498 A1; 2008/033440 A1; 2008/177307 A1; 2008/183293 A1; 2008/249569 A1; 2008/249625 A1; 2008/249575 A1; 2008/281424 A1; 2008/281425 A1; 2009/030520 A1; 2009/080997 A1; 2009/105830 A1; 2009/105831 A1; 2009/112271 A1; 2009/182430 A1; 2009/187218 A1; 2009/210062 A1; 2009/224023 A1; 2009/234455 A1; 2010/145460 A1; 2010/305704 A1; 2010/324606 A1; 2011/125269 A1; 2011/137349 A1; 2011/178600 A1; 2011/208312 A1; 2011/288646 A1; 2011/295327 A1; 2011/295371 A1; 2011/307011 A1; 2011/319935 A1; 2012/010714 A1; 2012/271423 A1; 2012/277870 A1; 2012/323330 A1; 2012/330419 A1; 2013/018469 A1; 2013/018468 A1; 2013/018470 A1; 2013/023992 A1; 2013/023991 A1; 2013/053962 A1; 2013/060339 A1; 2013/073044 A1; 2013/173002 A1; 2013/282017 A1; 2014/249629 A1; 2015/025637 A1; 2015/105824 A1; 2015/148847 A1; 2016/374830 A1; 2017/252178 A1.

2.C — Foreign documents cited

• FR 2727003 A1 (French; intervertebral fusion/osteosynthesis device)
• WO 2004/093749 A1
• WO 2006/091503 A1

2.D — Non-patent literature cited

• 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.
• E. K. Wai et al., Disk Replacement Arthroplasties…, Seminars in Spine Surgery, vol. 15, No. 4, Dec. 2003, pp. 473-482.
• Richard D. Guyer et al., Intervertebral Disc Prostheses, Spine Journal, vol. 28, No. 15S (Aug. 1, 2003), pp. S15-S23.
• Vincent C. Traynelis, Prosthetics and Biologics: The Wave of the Future, Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 50 (2002), Ch. 9, pp. 207-219.
• Three ISR/Written-Opinion documents: PCT/US2007/05005 (Dec. 3, 2007); PCT/US2007/021013 (Jul. 9, 2008); PCT/US2007/021015 (May 21, 2008).

3. "Most relevant" prior art (clustered by the '998's claim categories)

Because the '998's claim 1 (per the abstract and the parallel family claims, e.g. '913 claim 1 as recited in the Globus complaint) is a "tool assembly" combining (i) a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer — an intervertebral cage having first/second integral screw guides with slots/indentations — and (ii) a tool for manipulating and inserting it, the citations sort into four anticipation-relevant clusters. Caveat: all § 102 statements below are potential/inferential; exact claim language was unavailable.

Cluster 1 — Interbody cages/spacers (the "bone fusion spacer" element).

• US 6,432,106 B1 (Fraser), Aug. 2002 — anterior lumbar interbody fusion device with integrated fixation. Potentially relevant to the "intervertebral cage" limitation.
• US 6,368,350 B1 (Erickson et al.), Apr. 2002; US 6,342,074 B1 (Simpson); US 6,375,682 B1 (Fleischmann et al.); US 6,419,704 B1 (Ferree); US 6,558,423 B1 (Michelson) — interbody fusion cages/implants.
• US 6,126,689 A (Brett), Oct. 2000; US 5,888,223 A (Bray Jr.); US 5,865,848 A (Baker); US 5,514,180 A (Heggeness et al.) — spinal fusion implants/cages.

Cluster 2 — Screws and angled trans-cage screw fixation (the "integral screw guide(s)" element).

• US 6,235,034 B1 (Bray), May 2001 and US 6,224,602 B1 (Hayes), May 2001 — bone-screw fixation through interbody implants; these are the type of references most likely to be cited against a "cage with screw guides" limitation.
• US 5,413,583 A (Wohlers), May 1995 — bone screw.
• US 6,632,562 B1 (Wolter) — bone screw geometry.

Cluster 3 — Insertion/positioning instrumentation (the "tool for manipulating and inserting" element) — the presumed heart of the '998 claim.

• US 6,655,243 B2 (Anderson et al.), Dec. 2003 — screwdriver/instrumentation.
• US 5,976,136 A (Bailey et al.), Nov. 1999; US 7,776,047 B2; US 8,105,367 B2; US 8,167,949 B2; US 8,298,000-class implants/tools — surgical insertion instrumentation.
• These instrumentation references are the ones I would test first against the '998's "tool for manipulating and inserting" claim if the verbatim claims were available.

Cluster 4 — Staples/staplers and facet fixation (the cervical facet staple; lumbar facet staple + ratchet).

• US 5,660,188 A (Groiso), Aug. 1997; US 5,916,224 A (Esplin), Jun. 1999 — bone/surgical staples.
• US 4,064,881 A (Meredith), Dec. 1977 — surgical clip applicator (impaction/applicator concept).
• US 5,951,574 A (Stefanchik et al.), Sep. 1999; US 5,960,522 A (Boe), Oct. 1999; US 5,005,749 A (Aranyi), Apr. 1991; US 5,454,819 A (Knoepfler), Oct. 1995 — surgical staplers; relevant to the stapling-device aspects and CPC A61B17/064/2017/00407 (ratchet) and 2017/0641 (three-leg staples).
• FR 2727003 A1 — foreign intervertebral osteosynthesis reference; note § 102(a)/(b) can apply to a pre-2005 foreign patent.

Non-patent literature (Grob Dynesys; Wai; Guyer; Traynelis) is cited to the flexible-fusion / motion-preservation rationale rather than to structure, and would be § 103-type background, not § 102 anticipation.

4. § 102 framework and its hard limits

• § 102(a)/(b) candidates are the third-party U.S. patents/pubs and foreign documents dated before the 2005-04-12 priority date (e.g., the 1990s and 1999-2003 references above). None that I can verify discloses, in one reference, the full combination of an intervertebral cage with two integral, oppositely-angled screw guides plus a dedicated insertion tool — which is the family's asserted point of novelty.
• § 102(e) candidates are U.S. patents/publications of others filed before, but published after, the priority date (a number of the 2005-2008 publications).
• The applicant's own family references (§ 2.A) are not § 102(b) prior art against the '998; they are relevant only to priority, § 102(e) self-collision, and double patenting.

I must be explicit about two impossibilities here:

1. I do not have the '998's verbatim claims (the supplied text is truncated before the claims), so I cannot map a specific reference to a specific claim number. Any "claim(s)" attribution would be fabrication.
2. I cannot verify the disclosure content of most of the ~230 references from the sources retrieved; reliably stating what each reference teaches would require opening each document.

5. What I recommend as the next, definitive step

1. Pull the granted claims from USPTO PatentCenter / the Google Patents "Claims" tab for US 9,848,998, so anticipation can be assessed claim-by-claim.
2. Retrieve the face-of-patent PTO-892 for application 15/054,926 to confirm which of the above were Examiner citations vs. applicant IDS citations (the two carry different weight in a validity analysis).
3. Map Cluster 2 + Cluster 3 (cage-with-screw-guides art combined with cage-insertion instrumentation) against the independent claim, since the '998's novelty, per the abstract, lies in the "tool assembly" (spacer + manipulation tool) rather than in either element alone.

Bottom line: no single cited reference appears on its face to anticipate the '998's spacer-plus-insertion-tool combination; the most relevant prior art sits in Cluster 2 (angled trans-cage screw fixation: Bray '034 / Hayes '602) and Cluster 3 (interbody insertion instrumentation: Anderson '243), which would most likely support a § 103 obviousness challenge rather than § 102 anticipation. I could not confirm any § 102 anticipation with high confidence given the unavailable claims and unverified reference disclosures.

I'll research the prior art cited against and relevant to US 9,848,998 to build a grounded § 103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the specific claim language for the '998 patent and the related PTAB record.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,848,998 B2

§ 103 framework and two threshold caveats

I analyze the '998 under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), applying the MPEP 2143 rationales. Two caveats must frame everything below, per the standing "no auto-correction / flag contradictions" rule:

Caveat 1 — I do not have the verbatim claim set of the '998. As noted in the previously generated summary, the authoritative Google Patents text supplied is truncated at the end of the Detailed Description and contains no claims. The claim-scope premise below is therefore built from (a) the '998 abstract, (b) the Google Patents prior-art keywords on the '998 record — "screw guide, screw, integral, tool, quadrant" — and (c) the verbatim claims of the same-family, same-specification '913 patent (US 8,353,913), which I retrieved and which shares the '998's specification chain (both descend from 11/842,855 → 13/084,543). Element-by-element mapping should be re-verified against the granted claims PDF before being relied on.

Caveat 2 — a date contradiction exists between the task and the prior sections. The task sets "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but the previously generated Litigation summary cites a Federal Circuit decision dated September 11, 2026 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696). Both cannot be true. I flag it rather than reconcile it; it does not affect the prior-art analysis except that all asserted-art dates must be measured against the '998's effective filing date, not "today."

Step 1 — The critical date problem (this drives everything)

The '998 record lists a prior-art / priority date of 2005-04-12 (provisional 60/670,231), but the '998 issued from application 15/054,926 filed 2016-02-26 as a continuation of 13/741,361 (Jan. 14, 2013), which is a continuation of 13/084,543 (Apr. 11, 2011, the divisional that became the '913), plus a continuation of 13/108,982. Its disclosure traces to 11/842,855 (Aug. 21, 2007) → 11/536,815 (2006) → 11/208,644 (2005).

This matters because the same-family IPRs disclose exactly which art the family's "tool-assembly" claims were measured against — Waugh (US 8,425,607) and Fanger (US 2004/0204717) — and Waugh published Oct. 16, 2008 (US 2008/0249569 A1). Waugh therefore cannot be § 102(e) art against a claim entitled to the 2005 or 2007 dates; it can only be prior art against the tool claims that were added as new matter in the 2011 filing (13/084,543) and carried forward. That the family's own IPRs were instituted over Waugh therefore implies the tool claims at issue were not entitled to the 2005/2007 priority. The obviousness conclusion is threshold-dependent on this: if the '998's asserted claims are entitled to 2005-04-12, the Waugh/Fanger attack fails as a matter of prior-art status regardless of the technical teachings; if they are entitled only to 2011, it succeeds.

Step 2 — The prior art on/around this record

Step 3 — Combination 1 (the core, and the one actually litigated): Waugh + Fanger, optionally + Neumann

This is not a hypothetical. It is the ground asserted in the Globus IPR against the sibling '913 patent (IPR2020-01307; exhibits EX1028 = Waugh, EX1029 = Fanger; the claim chart is docketed at docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01307/.../Exhibit-1027...pdf, and the element-level petition text at ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1539286/...).

Element mapping (to the claim-1 grammar of the '913, which the '998's keywords "screw guide / screw / integral / tool / quadrant" track):

Motivation, articulated and legally sufficient (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem: both are spinal-fusion instrumentation. Waugh explicitly contemplates "an insertion tool" that "selectively connects to the side slots"; Fanger supplies precisely such a tool. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (combining references where one provides the structure the other needs).
2. Predictable result / no change in principle of operation — the PHOSITA testimony in the petition: modifying Fanger's tool for Waugh's spacer "would have yielded a predictable outcome and would not have changed the principal [sic] of operation of either."
3. Art-recognized design incentive: reduce the number of instruments passed through a narrow PLIF/TLIF working corridor and improve trajectory accuracy ("assisting the surgeon in achieving accurate device placement and reducing the likelihood of patient injury"), and prefer angled screw-head access so the surgeon can reach the screw heads without a separate drill-guide step.
4. Fanger's own express teaching that tab shape/size/position "can vary" and "can be adapted to match the contour of particular portions of a spinal fixation element" supplies the reasonable expectation of success for adapting tabs to Waugh's slots.
5. Quadrant limitation (from the '998 keyword set): the record's expert analysis treats the four-quadrant placement of screw-guide entry openings as "a restatement of basic principles of elements of machine design … which were already in practice," with diagonal opposition being an obvious arrangement to prevent guide overlap, permit shorter screws (less implanted material), and avoid screw–screw collision — classic KSR "obvious to try" territory.

Step 4 — Combination 2 (for the cage/angulation claims): Tisserand + Mathieu (+ Bonutti)

This is the second ground used against the family (petition ptacts.uspto.gov/.../petitions/1539287/..., referencing Tisserand FR 2,727,003, Mathieu US 2005/0177236, Bonutti US 7,001,385).

• Tisserand discloses "recess (1g) is oriented upwards, while the recess (1h) is oriented downwards … one (2) will be directed downwards, while the other (3) … upwards" — i.e., a cage with internal screw guides angled to orient two screws bi-directionally in opposite directions (rostral/caudal), the precise core of the '998's "bi-directional fixating transvertebral" concept.
• Mathieu teaches divergent boreholes acting as screw guides with axes 25°–70° from the implant's horizontal plane, expressly to reach better-quality bone and to improve screw insertion access. This directly meets the "predetermined angle" / "approximately 25°" limitations that appear across the family's dependent claims.
• Bonutti supplies the anchoring/hole geometry for the dependent claims addressed in the same ground.

Motivation: both references share the same objective (fix the interbody implant to the superior and inferior vertebral endplates to resist extrusion), and the angulation range in Mathieu is expressly justified by bone quality and surgical access — a KSR-approved reason to select a 25° guide. Choosing the specific angle within a disclosed range is "a design choice … obvious to a person of ordinary skill" and, per the petition excerpt, "Moskowitz does not disclose a stated problem or solution that is addressed using an internal screw guide with a 25° angulation" that could rebut predictability.

Step 5 — The reference the Examiner actually relied on: Michelson US 7,442,209

The '998's family file includes the March 12, 2012 Examiner interview (Examiner Pedro Philogene), which records the prior art discussed as Michelson, U.S. 7,442,209 ("Implant with trailing end adapted to receive bone screws"). The Applicants distinguished Michelson on the ground that Michelson's alignment pegs 154/threaded driver 155 engage alignment holes/threaded hole 153, and Michelson's openings 118 are bone-growth slots, not prong-receiving slots: "No part of either of the prongs 174 engages the openings 118." This is the strongest non-obviousness argument available on this record and a point in the '998's favor if the '998 claims retain the limitation that "a distal end of each of the plurality of prongs is capable of engaging a respective slot or indentation of the intervertebral cage." If, however, the '998's independent claim omits or generalizes that limitation (which the "tool/screw guide/integral/quadrant" keyword set suggests is possible), Michelson alone or in combination with Waugh/Fanger becomes materially stronger.

Step 6 — Remaining/peripheral limitations

Priority/§ 102(e) caveat on the applicant's own earlier family members: US 7,704,279, 7,846,188, 7,942,903, 7,972,363 and the '913 share inventors/entity with the '998, so they are not "by another" under pre-AIA § 102(e)/(a) (and would raise double patenting rather than § 103 concerns). They are therefore not listed as § 103 combinations, but they are the best evidence of what the PHOSITA already knew as of 2011.

Step 7 — Counterarguments and where the analysis is weakest

1. Teaching away / bodily incorporation is not required. The Applicants' strongest non-obviousness theme — that the family's design "obviates the need for … pedicle screw fixation" and "supplemental anterior or anterior lumbar plating" — is an advantage, not a teaching away from Waugh/Fanger. In re Keller; KSR (a reference must be read as a whole but need not be bodily incorporated).
2. Missing claim language. Because I could not confirm the '998's verbatim independent claims, I cannot certify that any specific asserted claim reads onto Combination 1 or 2. If the '998's granted claims added a limitation absent from the '913 (e.g., a specific screw-locking mechanism — the leaf-spring/ratchet-head locking of the later continuations, or the "hemi-bracket"), the Waugh/Fanger ground may be incomplete and would need supplementation by, e.g., a screw-lock reference.
3. Secondary considerations were not developed in the material available to me. If the '998 patentee can show unexpected results, industry praise, licensing, or copying tied to the claimed combination (not merely to the commercial product), that evidence must be weighed under Graham step four. None appears in the record retrieved.
4. Date contradiction (flagged above) affects nothing in the technical showing but everything in whether Waugh is statutory prior art.

Bottom line

On the art of record, US 9,848,998 would be prima facie obvious over:

• Waugh (US 8,425,607) + Fanger (US 2004/0204717), optionally + Neumann — for the tool-assembly/gripper/integral-screw-guide/quadrant claims, with the motivation being a shared field, an express tool-connection teaching in Waugh, Fanger's express adaptability teaching, and the KSR design incentives of accurate trajectory and fewer instruments; and
• Tisserand (FR 2,727,003) + Mathieu (US 2005/0177236) [+ Bonutti US 7,001,385] — for the bi-directional, angled-screw-guide cage claims, motivated by the common anti-extrusion objective and Mathieu's express 25°–70° guidance.

The single dispositive uncertainty is priority: if the '998's asserted claims are entitled to the 2005-04-12 provisional, Waugh (pub. 2008) and Mathieu (2005) change status/date and the Combination-1 attack may fail as a matter of prior-art qualification. I recommend verifying (i) the granted claim set from the USPTO PatentCenter/Google Patents claims section and (ii) the priority entitlement of each independent claim before relying on this conclusion. I have not fabricated any claim text, reference dates, or holdings that I could not ground in the retrieved sources.