Appeal 2007-0532
Application 10/828,316
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 2, 7, 8, and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Boyce,2 Breitbart,3 and Sander.4 The Examiner relies on
Boyce for its disclosure of an “osteoimplant composition comprising bone
particles in physiological saline” (Answer 4). The Examiner also notes that
Boyce teaches that the composition can contain “chitosan and hydrogels” as
well as “bioactive substances” (id.).
The Examiner relies on Breitbart for teaching a “bone repair
composition comprising cells such as stem cells, chondrocytes and
mesenchyma cells,” and relies on Sander for “disclosing a composition
suitable for bone repair comprising biocompatible particles dispersed in a
matrix” (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art would be motivated to prepare a composition comprising bone
particles and bioactive agents having osteoinductive properties such as
growth factors to form a bone cement composition as disclosed in the prior
art cited” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that the compositions of claims 21, 23,
and 26 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based
on the cited references. Boyce discloses a composition for making
osteoimplants (col. 4, ll. 26-32). The composition contains bone particles
that can be demineralized (col. 5, ll. 37-39) in an amount of “about 5 to
about 100 weight percent” (col. 7, ll. 48-50).
2 Boyce, US 6,294,187 B1, Sep. 25, 2001.
3 Breitbart, US 5,700,289, Dec. 23, 1997.
4 Sander, US 5,356,629, Oct. 18, 1994.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013