Ex Parte Schwartz et al - Page 15

                Appeal  2006-1953                                                                             
                Application 10/195,347                                                                        

                would have found it obvious to use vertebrate SIS based on Schwartz’s                         
                teaching of SIS generally.                                                                    
                      Appellants argue that claims 3, 4, and 51 are patentable over Schwartz                  
                and Patel for the same reasons that claims 1 and 42 are patentable over                       
                Schwartz alone (Br. 23, 26, 29).  These arguments are fully addressed above                   
                in the discussion of Schwartz.                                                                
                      Because “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.”  Connell v.                       
                Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir.                       
                1983), we affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 51 as obvious in view of                       
                Schwartz and Patel.  We also affirm the rejection of claim 4 as obvious                       
                because Schwartz would have made obvious the use of vertebrate SIS.                           
                Claims 5, 6, 52, 68, 78, 79, and 104-106 fall with claims 3, 4, and 51.                       
                However, we reverse the rejection with respect to claims 27, 28, 76, 83, and                  
                127-129.                                                                                      
                6.  OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF SCHWARTZ AND COOK                                                  
                      Claims 17, 29, 66, and 117 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                      
                obvious in view of Schwartz and Cook.6  Claim 17 is representative of the                     
                rejected claims.  Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and adds the limitation that                    
                the plug is chemically or physically crosslinked.                                             
                      The Examiner reasons that                                                               
                      Schwartz does not disclose the process of cross-linking.  Cook                          
                      teaches the process of cross-linking submucosa derived                                  
                      collagen  molecules  to  produce  a graft  material  with  higher                       
                      strength.  Therefore in view of the teachings it would have been                        
                      obvious  to  one  of  ordinary  skill in  the  art  at  the  time  the                  
                                                                                                             
                6 Claim 66 has been withdrawn from appeal.                                                    

                                                     15                                                       

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013