Appeal No. 2003-0233
Application 09/103,874
col. 3, lines 35-36).
The examiner argues that Baumgartner’s collagenous material
differs from that of the appellants only in that Baumgartner’s
collagenous material has not been heparinized (answer, page 6).
Even if, because Baumgartner’s treated collagenous material, like
that of the appellants (specification, page 4, lines 19-22), has
properties corresponding very well to the native tissue, it could
reasonably be considered to appear to be the same or
substantially the same as the appellants’ collagenous material
before being heparinized, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. The reason is that, as
discussed above, the examiner has not established that the
applied references themselves would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to heparinize Baumgartner’s collagenous
material.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007