Appeal No. 98-1858
Application 08/678,196
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Cumming.
According to the examiner,
Ross discloses the invention substan-
tially as claimed. Ross discloses replac-
ing a dys- functioning valve in a human
patient with an xenograft (animal tissue)
heart valve. However, Ross is silent in
regards to using a marine mammal xeno-
graft. Cumming et al
teaches the use of marine mammal xenografts
for corneal tissue replacement (see column
3, lines 13-19). It would have been obvi-
ous to one having ordinary skill in the art
to have derived a marine mammal xenograft
as taught by Cumming et al for the xeno-
graft heart valve of Ross for an ample
supply of heart valve tissue and where, for
example, other xenografts such as porcine
valves are repugnant to a portion of the
population due to religious beliefs (an-
swer, pages 2-3).
The full text of the examiner's rejection with
regard to the appealed claims and rebuttal to the arguments
presented by appellant appears in the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed April 24, 1997). Rather than reiterate appel-
lant’s position on the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal, we make reference to the appeal brief (Paper No. 13,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007