Appeal No. 2006-0704 Page 21
Application No. 10/060,697
The differences:
The prior art of record does not teach a composition that combines both calcium
sulfate, demineralized bone and cancellous bone together with a common core of
ingredients that comprises hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and a mixing solution.
Instead, O’Leary takes this common core of ingredients and adds demineralized bone;
and Yim takes this common core of ingredients and adds calcium sulfate. For his part
Wironen teaches a bone repair composition comprising a gelatin (which may be
“thermally cross-linkable”) demineralized bone, cancellous bone, BMP, and a reagent
that “enhances the range of manipulable characteristics of strength and osteoinduction
exhibited by the composition.” Wironen, page 5, line 21 to page 6, line 9.
The level of skill in the art:
In the background section of their specification (pages 1-2), appellants discuss a
number of prior art references that establish the state of this art, and level of skill in this
art. For clarity, I direct attention to the following documents: Sottosanti17, Hanker18 and
Snyders19. Each of these patents issued prior to the filing date of appellants’
application, each teach bone repair compositions20, each is discussed in appellants’
17 Sottosanti, U.S. Patent No. 5,366,507, issued November 22, 1994
18 Hanker et al. (Hanker), U.S. Patent No. 4,619,655, issued October 28, 1986
19 Snyders, U.S. Patent No. 5,425,769, issued June 20, 1995
20 See Sottosanti, column 1, lines 6-13; Hanker, column 1, lines 12-13; and Snyders, column 1,
lines 10-12.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007