Interference No. 103,570
are not in dispute) are insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to the subject
matter of Hubbard claim 21.4
Before individually addressing the prior art references in
question, we first focus upon some of the terminology used in
claim 21 as that terminology is defined by Hubbard.
Initially, we note that claim 21 requires that the ceramic
particles which are used as a component of the soft tissue
augmentation material must be both “rounded” and “substantially
spherical.” These terms are defined in Hubbard’s specification
(page 9, l. 28-page 10, l. 3) as follows:
The term “substantially spherical” refers
to the fact that while some of the present
particles may be spheres, most of the particles
of the present invention are sphere-like in
their shape, i.e., they are spheroidal. FIGURE
1 is illustrative of these spheroidal or
substantially spherical characteristics. The
terms “rounded” or “smooth, rounded” as used
herein refers to the fact even though the present
particles are not perfect spheres, they do not
have any sharp or angular edges.
According to Hubbard (HB-12), this means that, to be
“substantially spherical,” the majority of the particles must be
4Because we hold that a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established, we find it unnecessary to discuss evidence
adduced by Hubbard to establish unexpected results, namely, the
data presented in the first Devine Declaration (HR 71-82).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007