Interference No. 103,570
that the particles be “substantially non-resorbable” as required
by Hubbard claim 21. In this regard, we note that none of the
variety of exemplary biomaterials listed in Wallace (col. 3, ll.
1-11) appear to be ceramic materials.
Draenert (WX-14)
We entirely agree with Hubbard that Draenert is not an
effective reference against the claims in question since Draenert
teaches away from using “substantially non-resorbable” particles.
Indeed, while Draenert uses particles which are spherical in
shape, Draenert requires that they be highly porous and
“absorbable in the body” in order to provide “channels into which
the bone tissue can grow” (col. 1, ll. 10-20; col. 2, ll. 22-27;
col. 3, ll. 17-19). This is in contrast to Hubbard’s ceramic
matrix particles which are made “substantially non-resorbable”
by sintering to provide a scaffold or lattice for soft tissue
growth at the augmentation site (Hubbard specification: p. 7,
l. 31-p. 8, l. 7). Thus, the absorbable particles of Draenert
serve a fundamentally different purpose than the substantially
non-resorbable particles of Hubbard. These fundamental
differences are more fully explained by Poser (HR 138-139) and
Devine (HR 108-111).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007