Appeal No. 1998-2777
Application 08/477,226
With regard to the examiner’s comments directed at dependent claims 2 and 3 on appeal
(answer, page 4), we perceive that each of these claims sets forth the step of “forming interconnected
lumens within the matrix,” which lumens are specifically adapted for or capable of being connected to
specifically recited vessels or ducts within tissue of a patient, i.e., blood vessels (claim 2), or a duct
selected from the group consisting of “lymph ducts, exocrine function ducts, excretory ducts, and ducts
for neural ingrowth” (claim 3). These limitations in claims 2 and 3 clearly provide a further limitation on
the method of claim 1 in that the interconnected lumens recited in clause (b) of claim 1 must be formed
in such a manner, size, etc., as to have the capability of being connected to a blood vessel (claim 2) or
one of the ducts set forth in claim 3 on appeal.
Since we have found that appellants’ claims on appeal are reasonably definite, it follows that the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, will not be
sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8 through 10, 12 through 18, 23
through 25, 27 through 29 and 32 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Klebe,
we share appellants’ view that Klebe fails to teach, disclose or suggest a device for tissue regeneration,
or method of making such a device, wherein the device is comprised of a matrix of successive layers of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007