Appeal No. 2000-1930 Page 5
Application No. 08/232,452
genetically modified fibroblasts by implantation of a collagen matrix containing
said cells into the loose connective tissue of the dermis.” Id. at 7.
Bell is relied upon for its teaching of a method of producing a full-
thickness skin equivalent. As part of that process, Bell teaches a method of
producing a dermal equivalent lattice wherein fibroblasts are mixed with collagen,
serum and medium, resulting in a gel-like structure containing the fibroblasts.
According to the rejection, the dermal equivalent lattice “is tissue-like” in
consistency, and the cells contained within it have the properties of the cells of
intact skin.
The rejection over the combination with Miller, Anson and Palmer
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to embed the genetically
modified fibroblasts of [Miller], [Anson] or [Palmer] in a collagen-
containing dermal equivalent as taught by [Bell], and then to
implant the dermal equivalent into the dermis of the subject to be
treated. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the
technology of [Bell], given the explicit reference to Bell’s earlier
publication by both [Anson] and [Palmer]. There would have been
a reasonable expectation of success, given the knowledge that the
dermal equivalent lattice of [Bell] is tissue-like in consistency and
the fibroblasts within have the characteristics of normal dermal
fibroblasts, as taught by [Bell]. Thus, the invention as a whole was
clearly prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made.
Id. at 5.
The obviousness statement with respect to the combination over Garver I
Garver II or Selden is identical, except for the motivational statement. The
examiner asserts that “[t]he skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007