Appeal No. 2000-1906
Application No. 09/063,338
After reviewing the record, we agree with Appellants that the examiner has
not met her burden of showing prima facie obviousness. The cited references
come closest to suggesting the process defined in appealed claim 1, i.e., a
process in which a platelet-rich plasma fraction is made, then a portion of that
fraction is treated to activate the endogenous clotting factors, and the activated
clotting factors are mixed with the remaining platelet-rich plasma fraction to
produce a fibrin glue.
Specifically, Antanavich discloses using a platelet-rich plasma concentrate
as the source of fibrinogen in fibrin glue (column 12, lines 15-17), and both
Antanavich and Hirsh disclose using thrombin to cause the fibrinogen to
polymerize (Antanavich, column 12, line 17; Hirsh, column 2 , lines 44-51). In
addition, Hirsh teaches the advantage of using autologous thrombin in fibrin glue
(column 1, lines 28-40). Hirsh also teaches deriving autologous thrombin from
the part of the blood that is left over after fibrinogen is removed (column 2, lines
13-43). Finally, Antanavich teaches that using platelet-rich plasma concentrate
in place of Hirsh’s cryoprecipitated fibrinogen is advantageous because it is
quicker (column 2, lines 10-26; column 11, lines 57-60). Thus, these references
would have suggested a fibrin glue comprising autologous platelet-rich plasma
concentrate, and autologous thrombin derived from what is left of the blood
sample after the platelet-rich plasma is removed.2
appear to have identical disclosures and the examiner did not make clear why she considered
both to be necessary. For simplicity, we will cite to only one of the patents (5,585,007).
2 Cochrum, Barrow, and Suzuki add nothing particularly relevant to claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007