Appeal 2007-0532
Application 10/828,316
We agree with the Examiner that the cited references would have
made obvious the compositions of claims 21, 23, and 26 to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, Boyce discloses a composition
comprising bone particles in a carrier, at a concentration of at least 5%, and
suggests using demineralized bone particles (col. 5, ll. 37-39; col. 7, ll. 48-
50). Boyce also suggests adding chitosan to the composition as a binder or
thickener in an amount of 5-80% (col. 8, ll. 13-16 and ll. 37-40; col. 10, l. 58
to col. 11, 1. 9).
Boyce also suggests adding bioactive substances to the composition,
including various cells, blood, and growth factors such as TGF-beta (col. 9,
ll. 31-62). Similarly, Sander suggests adding growth factors such as
fibroblast growth factor (FGF) to a bone repair composition (col. 4, l. 51 to
col. 5, l. 5).
Boyce suggests mixing the bone particles with a wetting agent and
additives to form a “composition having the consistency of a slurry or paste”
(col. 10, ll. 20-30); i.e., a formable composition. Boyce teaches that suitable
wetting agents include physiological saline (col. 8, l. 1), which would have
suggested phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to those of skill in the art.
We agree with the Examiner that, based on these disclosures, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make a
composition comprising 5-50% demineralized bone particles in phosphate
buffered saline combined with chitosan (5-20% by weight) and a growth
factor such as TGF-beta or a cellular material such as blood serum (plasma).
The references do not expressly disclose the molecular weight range
recited in the claims. Appellants, however, did not challenge the Examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013