Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 6


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                              Page 6               
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

                    Appellants argue that those skilled in the art would not have been led to combine               
             Yim and O’Leary as posited by the examiner:                                                            
                    [T]he Yim reference only suggests that a calcium sulfate hemihydrate-                           
                    containing substance (CSHS) provides [improved handling, moldability                            
                    and consistency] when combined with the formulation described in U.S.                           
                    Pat. No. 5,171,579 (see column 2, lines 51-65).  Yim only suggests a                            
                    CSHS provides such advantages in the context of a formulation                                   
                    comprising osteogenic proteins, autogenous blood, and a porous                                  
                    particulate polymer matrix. . . .  There is no suggestion in the Yim                            
                    reference that such improved properties would be expected in any other                          
                    formulation. . . .  Further, there is nothing in the O’Leary reference to                       
                    suggest a problem with moldability, consistency, etc. . . . that might lead                     
                    one of ordinary skill in the art to seek an additive to address such a                          
                    problem.                                                                                        
             Appeal Brief, page 8.                                                                                  
                    “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden               
             of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.”  In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28              
             USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  “[T]o establish obviousness based on a                            
             combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation,                 
             suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was                 
             made by the applicant.”  In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316                       
             (Fed. Cir. 2000).  An adequate showing of motivation to combine requires “evidence                     
             that ‘a skilled artisan, confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no                 
             knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art                 
             references for combination in the manner claimed.’”  Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Calif.                
             Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                                
                    In this case, we agree with Appellants that the examiner has not adequately                     
             explained how the cited references would have suggested the composition of claim 1 to                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007