Appeal No. 2003-0233
Application 09/103,874
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The examiner has not explained how the applied references
themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
heparinize Baumgartner’s collagenous material by Noishiki’s
method. A desirable characteristic of Baumgartner’s collagenous
material is that it has properties which correspond very well to
those of the native tissue (col. 2, lines 42-46). The examiner
has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected Baumgartner’s collagenous material, after
being treated with Noishiki’s protamine, glutaraldehyde and
heparin, to have the properties required by Baumgartner.3
Nor has the examiner explained how Noishiki would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to heparinize Baumgartner’s
collagenous material without use of the protamine and
glutaraldehyde. Noishiki indicates that the glutaraldehyde is
essential to fix the protamine, and that the protamine is
essential for bonding to the heparin (col. 2, lines 65-67;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007