Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 11


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                            Page 11                
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

             various ceramics, hydroxyapatites, and “like material[s]” are osteoconductive and useful               
             in bone repair compositions.5                                                                          
                    In our view, this reasoning relies on the hindsight reconstruction that the courts              
             have condemned.  See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (“Combining                         
             prior art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching, or motivation                    
             simply takes the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to            
             defeat patentability—the essence of hindsight.”).                                                      
                    The cited references, viewed without the benefit of the present disclosure, teach               
             three different approaches to solving the same problem:  making a composition that can                 
             be put (and will stay) in a bone defect and that promotes growth of new bone.  O’Leary                 
             provides these properties by combining demineralized bone powder with glycerol.  Yim                   
             provides these properties by combining bone morphogenic protein(s) with calcium                        
             sulfate hemihydrate.  Wironen provides these properties by combining gelatin with an                   
             osteogenic component (e.g., demineralized bone).                                                       
                    Each of the prior art compositions is disclosed as a complete bone graft                        
             substitute composition having bone growth promoting properties.  No doubt none of                      
             them was perfect, and each of them could have been further modified.  But viewed                       
             without the benefit of hindsight, the references would not have suggested modifying the                
             prior art compositions in a way that would produce the composition claimed here.                       


                                                                                                                    
             5 The dissent also cites three patents that are of record but not relied on by the examiner.  We will not
             further lengthen this opinion with a discussion of those references.  The rejection on appeal is the one
             made by the examiner, not one that hypothetically could have been made.  If the examiner concludes that
             the prior art supports a different rejection from the one reversed today, she is of course free to reject the
             claims on that basis.                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007