Appeal 2007-0532
Application 10/828,316
endothelial cells present at a concentration of 105 to 108 per cc of the
carrier.”
Claim 26 depends on claim 23 and limits the bone particles to
allograft cortical bone in the size range of 100-850 microns and in a
concentration of 20-35% by weight.
Claims 21 and 23 both state, in the preamble, that the composition is
“for application to a bone defect site to promote new bone growth at the
site.” This preamble language merely recites the intended use of the
composition; it does not add any limitations to those recited in the body of
the claim. Therefore, we give it no weight in interpreting the claim. See,
e.g., IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434,
54 USPQ2d 1129, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If the preamble adds no
limitations to those in the body of the claim, the preamble is not itself a
claim limitation and is irrelevant to proper construction of the claim.”).
Both claims 21 and 23 also state that the demineralized bone particles
are “osteoinductive and osteoconductive.”1 This language, as well, does not
further limit the claims because it merely recites inherent properties of
demineralized bone particles. The instant specification itself states that the
“demineralized form of allograft bone is naturally both osteoinductive and
osteoconductive.” Therefore, all demineralized bone particles are
“demineralized osteoinductive and osteoconductive bone particles.”
1 “Osteoinduction and osteoconduction are two mechanisms by which a graft
may stimulate the growth of new bone. In the former case, inductive signals
of a little-understood nature lead to the phenotypic conversion of connective
tissue cells to bone cells. In the latter, the implant provides a scaffold for
bony ingrowth.” Breitbart, US 5,700,289, col. 1, ll. 36-42 (of record).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013