Appeal No. 1998-2777
Application 08/477,226
While there may certainly be pores or lumens formed in the three-dimensional tissue structure of
Klebe, there is no basis to conclude that the tissue structure or matrix in Klebe would necessarily
include “interconnected lumens” having openings for connection to ducts within tissue in a patient.
Accordingly, since all the limitations of appellants’ claims 1 through 3, 8 through 10, 12 through 18, 23
through 25, 27 through 29 and 32 through 36 are not found in Klebe, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, it follows that the examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) relying on Klebe will not be sustained.
As a result of our treatment of independent claim 16 above, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Klebe alone will likewise
not be sustained.
As a further commentary, with regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 7, 11, 19
through 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klebe in view of Cima ‘380, we
note that we share appellants’ view (brief, pages 13-15) that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Klebe and Cima ‘380, to merely employ the three-
dimensional printing techniques described in Cima ‘380 in the construction of a three-dimensional tissue
structure like that disclosed in Klebe. Contrary to the examiner’s determination (answer, page 7), we
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007