Appeal No. 1998-2836
Application No. 08/453,211
are equivalent. Rather, as the appellants see it, the cited
text teaches that the “residual component” or the “HAp etc.”
can be: (1) calcium phosphate derived from a living body, (2)
calcium phosphate derived from powdered bone, (3) synthetic
HAp, (4) apatite carbonate, or (5) $-TCP. See main brief, p.
8.
We are not persuaded by this argument that the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 19 is in error.
Even if the appellants’ interpretation is correct, it is our
opinion that the cited text would have suggested the
equivalency of calcium phosphate derived from powdered bone
and synthetic HAp. Thus, prior to the appellants’ invention,
it would have been obvious to use either calcium phosphate
derived from powdered bone or synthetic HAp as the
commercially available HAp in the composition taught by Ito.
As we have indicated, supra, calcium phosphate derived from
powdered bone is “animal bone powder.”
The appellants’ argument (main brief, pp. 9-11) that
Oonishi teaches away from the Ito composition because Ito
teaches HAp as a major component and Oonishi teaches HAp as a
residual component is also not well taken. The fact that
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007