Appeal No. 95-4847
Application No. 08/079,222
to combine the references. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427-428 (CCPA 1976); and Ex parte Obiaya,
227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985), aff’d. mem., 759
F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 1 and 29 further state that the fibrin is provided
by contacting fibrinogen with a fibrinogen-coagulating
protein. This is not explicitly set out in either reference.
However, it constitutes a product-by-process limitation which,
if the product is the same as a product of the prior art, adds
no patentable distinction to the claim. This principle is
discussed in In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The appellant has argued that the fibrin
disclosed in Spears is different from that which is recited in
claims 1 and 29, in that it is denatured, but has not pointed
out language in Spears which supports such a conclusion or
offered evidence to that effect. Fibrin is defined as an
insoluble blood protein resulting from the hydrolysis of
fibrinogen by the action of thrombin, which polymerizes to
form blood clots (see, for example, Hawley’s Condensed
Chemical Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 1987), which would
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007