Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 10
Application No. 08/089,854
prosthetic device of Jones to have been an obvious modification
within the skill of the art because the teachings of Jones
regarding the moldability and collagenous material binding
properties of the prosthetic materials would have suggested their
bone binding utility to one of ordinary skill in the art. The
skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of
success in shaping and using the device of Jones for hard body
(bone) implant utilities. Compare American Standard Inc. v.
Pfizer Inc., 722 F. Supp. 86, 131, 14 USPQ2d 1673, 1710 (D. Del.,
1989) wherein the court found that, as early as 1968-1969,
"...the field of biomaterials crossed the orthopedic, dental and
cardiovascular specialties, and (2) it was well known at the
critical time that soft and bone tissue would grow into pores."
Appellants’ arguments regarding the discovery of bone
binding properties and a difference in shape of the claimed
device versus the device disclosed by Jones have not convinced us
of any reversible error in the examiner's rejection of claims 13-
19 and 68-106 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 as unpatentable over
Jones for the reasons set forth above. We note that appellants
have not substantiated their arguments with convincing
comparative tests showing an actual difference in the shape
and/or properties of the claimed device and that of Jones.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007