Appeal No. 2003-0233
Application 09/103,874
impregnate collagen fibers with protamine, dipping the protamine-
impregnated collagenous material in an aqueous glutaraldehyde
solution to fix the protamine, and then dipping the collagenous
material in an aqueous heparin solution to form a heparinized
collagen material having bonds between the positively charged
protamine and the negatively charged heparin (col. 1, lines 50-
55; col. 2, lines 33-41 and 65-67; col. 3, lines 35-36).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to treat Baumgartner’s collagenous
tissue with heparin to improve the antithrombotic property of the
collagenous tissue as taught by Noishiki (answer, pages 4-5).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must appear
to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the prior art
could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not sufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007