Appeal No. 95-2655
Application 07/912,029
compared. The McCulley article compares Vitrax (E. Weck),
Amvisc, Healon and two laboratory formulations using the same
concentration of Vitrax SH (sodium hyaluronate). Neither
McCulley nor the declarant Mello identifies these laboratory
compositions . However, it appears that the best results7
occurred with these lab formulations. For the first
procedure, the lab formulations were nontoxic while Vitrax
caused some transient acute damage (although it was much less
toxic than Amvisc or Healon). For the second procedure (to
simulate leaving the material in place after surgical
closure), all of the commercial preparations (Vitrax, Amvisc,
and Healon) were toxic. The McCulley article further states
that the lab formulations using Weck SH were tolerated longer
than any of the commercial products. To properly evaluate the
comparisons in the McCulley article, the compositions of each
preparation would have to be known to determine if the claimed
subject matter was compared against the closest prior art.
7Mello does identify the Vitrax formulation as being
“substantially identical” to the ionic composition of appealed
claim 9 (Declaration, page 1). VITRAX™ is identified by a
product information sheet , filed on Oct. 1, 1993,as Paper No.
30. Neither appellants nor declarant state whether the Vitrax
(E. Weck) of the McCulley article is equivalent to VITRAX™.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007