Ex Parte Petersen - Page 40


             Appeal No. 2006-0704                                                            Page 40                
             Application No. 10/060,697                                                                             

                    As I understand it, the majority’s concern is one of motivation, or the suggestion              
             to combine the references of record.  The majority, however, limits their review of Yim                
             and O’Leary, and looking solely to the references themselves concludes that the                        
             references themselves fail to provide a suggestion for their combination.  See, e.g.,                  
             supra, bridging paragraph, pages 9, “O’Leary does not disclose that its composition is in              
             need of improved handling properties, such that those skilled in the art would have been               
             led to modify it as taught by Yim.”  In this regard, I remind the majority that all the                
             evidence of record must be considered for what it suggests to a person of ordinary skill               
             in the art.43  Further, “there is no requirement [under 35 U.S.C. § 103] that the prior art            
             contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed                         
             invention.  Rather, the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered                 
             through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.”  Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech.                
             Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                     
                    That said, I note that when the evidence on this record is considered as a whole,               
             it establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made           
             would have known of a variety of bone repair compositions that utilize both calcium                    
             sulfate and demineralized bone for the purpose of aiding in healing bone.  Accordingly,                
             I disagree with the majority’s intimation that the evidence of record fails to motivate                
                                                                                                                    
             would appear, at a minimum, that the osteoconductive matrix function of CSHS would be relevant to the  
             majority’s analysis of the evidence of record.  Unfortunately, the majority either overlooked this teaching
             in Yim, or was of the opinion that Yim is solely directed to improving the handling characteristics of a bone
             graft composition that comprises blood.  See, e.g., supra, page 8, wherein the majority finds that Yim 
             teaches that the inclusion of CSHS improves the handling characteristics of a formulation comprising   
             blood.                                                                                                 
             43 “[A]ll of the relevant teachings of the cited references must be considered in determining what they
             fairly teach to one having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mercier, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165, 185 USPQ 774,
             778 (CCPA 1975).                                                                                       






Page:  Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007