Ex Parte Petersen - Page 15


             Appeal No. 2006-0704                                                            Page 15                
             Application No. 10/060,697                                                                             

             only with regard to the presence of demineralized bone in one (O’Leary), and calcium                   
             sulfate7 (Yim) in the other.  Adding to this body of evidence is a third reference                     
             (Wironen) which teaches a bone repair composition comprising demineralized bone and                    
             any one of a variety of reagents that “enhance the range of manipulative characteristics               
             of strength and osteoinduction,” 8 e.g., the properties Yim attributes to calcium sulfate.9            
             Both O’Leary (column 1, lines 15-17) and Yim (column 8, lines 25-28) compliment                        
             Wironen by teaching, inter alia, that demineralized bone and calcium sulfate aid in the                
             development of new bone.  In this regard, I note that Wironen teaches that it is desirable             
             for a bone repair composition to be both osteoconductive and osteoinductive.  The                      
             evidence of record establishes that a composition comprising demineralized bone and                    
             calcium sulfate fulfills this objective.  Lastly, Wironen explains that when one intends to            
             repair large bone voids it is a matter of common sense to add cancellous bone to a                     
             bone repair composition.  Wironen, page 13, lines 11-14.                                               
                    For their part, the majority is determined to find that the evidence of record in this          
             case is not sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.  In their rush to                 
             reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the majority speaks of the                             




                                                                                                                    
             7 Yim discloses the use of calcium sulfate hemihydrate.  Appellants’ claims 16 and 23 requires calcium 
             sulfate.  For clarity, I note that according to appellants’ specification the calcium sulfate can be calcium
             sulfate hemihydrate.  See, e.g., “Preferred Embodiment 6,” appellants’ specification, page 9.  Therefore,
             all reference to calcium sulfate, herein, refers to both calcium sulfate and calcium sulfate hemihydrate.
             8 See Wironen, page 6, lines 8-9.                                                                      
             9 Yim, column 8, lines 25-28, calcium sulfate provides, inter alia, “a structural matrix function [and] an
             osteoconductive matrix. . . .”                                                                         






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007