Appeal No. 1999-1280
Application No. 08/379,813
factor is purified PDGF and the differentiation factor is partially purified or purified bone
morphogenetic protein….”
On reflection, we agree with the examiner that Antoniades anticipates the
claimed method. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner=s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Antoniades. As discussed supra claims 2, 7-
13, 18-24, and 29-33 fall together with claim 1.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The examiner finds (Answer, page 6) that Bentz teaches “composition including
BMP=s and TGF-B may be used to treat periodontal disease or alveolar ridge repairs …
[and that] various matrices may be used to administer BMPs including collagen and
hydroxyapatite.” However, the examiner recognizes (id.) that “the claims differ from
Bentz in that they specify types of periodontal defects, BMP-12 in the composition, and
combining the BMP with autologous blood.” Nevertheless, the examiner concludes
(Answer, pages 6-7) that these differences are obvious in view of the general teaching
provided by Bentz.
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that “even if the cited references
[sic] established [sic] a prima facie case of obviousness, which they [sic] do not, there is
additional evidence of record in the application sufficient to rebut any such rejection.”
Specifically, appellants argue (id.) that the specification discloses the following
unexpected advantages of the claimed methods “(1) the regeneration of the entire
periodontal attachment apparatus, including the cementum and ligamentous
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007