Appeal No. 2000-1930 Page 6
Application No. 08/232,452
technology of [Bell], given the knowledge that cells implanted in a collagen matrix
remain viable for up to 2 years.” Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that nothing in Miller, Anson, Palmer, Garver I, Garver II
or Selden teaches or suggests the placement of a collagen matrix containing
transduced fibroblasts into the loose connective tissue of a subject. Bell,
appellants assert, does not cure the deficiencies of the above references as it is
drawn to the production of a full-thickness skin equivalent. According to
appellants, there is no teaching in Bell of any utility for the collagen matrix alone,
and Bell does not teach or suggest that the collagen matrix may be implanted in
the loose connective tissue of the dermis. Appellants maintain that, at most, all
the combination suggests is transplantation of a full-thickness skin equivalent
graft. We agree.
We also note that review was hampered by the lack of claim-by-claim
analysis. For example, claim 29 is drawn to a product—the transduced primary
fibroblasts contained in a collagen matrix. The rejection, however, only
addresses the method, wherein the step of implanting the collagen matrix into
the loose connective tissue of the dermis is required. In addition, the rejection
does not address other limitations in the claims, such as the use of the method
to immunize a subject against an immunogen, as required by claim 30.
The burden is on the examiner to make a prima facie case of
obviousness, and the examiner may meet this burden by demonstrating that the
prior art would lead the ordinary artisan to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007