Ex Parte Schwartz et al - Page 13

                Appeal  2006-1953                                                                             
                Application 10/195,347                                                                        

                inherently meets the claim limitations because the plug/insert and the anchor                 
                are composed of different materials and therefore would inherently have                       
                different densities (Answer 5).                                                               
                      We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning.  Specifically, Schwartz                         
                teaches a device in which the plug/insert, but not the delivery unit/anchor,                  
                comprises repair factors including SIS and cells.  Since the plug/insert and                  
                delivery unit/anchor comprise different materials, they would reasonably be                   
                expected to have different densities.  This expectation is reinforced by                      
                Schwartz’s description of the delivery unit/anchor as “flexible and                           
                preferably resilient” (Schwartz, col. 10, l. 33) and the plug/insert as a                     
                “porous material in the form of a matrix or sponge” (id. at col. 10, ll. 52-53).              
                      Appellants argue that claim 92 “requires a naturally occurring                          
                bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrix, rather than a naturally occurring                   
                extracellular matrix,” and that Schwartz does not teach a cartilage repair                    
                device comprising such a matrix (Br. 29).                                                     
                      This argument is not persuasive.  Appellants’ Specification states that                 
                “[t]he term ‘bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrices’ includes                             
                extracellular matrices’ within its definition” (Specification 16).  For the                   
                reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we conclude that Schwartz                    
                describes a cartilage repair device comprising naturally occurring                            
                extracellular matrix; therefore, it also describes such a device comprising a                 
                naturally occurring bioremodelable collagenous tissue matrix, as required by                  
                claim 92.                                                                                     
                      We affirm the rejection of claim 92 as anticipated by Schwartz.                         
                Claims 93 and 94 fall with claim 92.                                                          


                                                     13                                                       

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013