Appeal No. 2006-2627 Page 11 Application No. 09/947,833 various ceramics, hydroxyapatites, and “like material[s]” are osteoconductive and useful in bone repair compositions.5 In our view, this reasoning relies on the hindsight reconstruction that the courts have condemned. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (“Combining prior art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply takes the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to defeat patentability—the essence of hindsight.”). The cited references, viewed without the benefit of the present disclosure, teach three different approaches to solving the same problem: making a composition that can be put (and will stay) in a bone defect and that promotes growth of new bone. O’Leary provides these properties by combining demineralized bone powder with glycerol. Yim provides these properties by combining bone morphogenic protein(s) with calcium sulfate hemihydrate. Wironen provides these properties by combining gelatin with an osteogenic component (e.g., demineralized bone). Each of the prior art compositions is disclosed as a complete bone graft substitute composition having bone growth promoting properties. No doubt none of them was perfect, and each of them could have been further modified. But viewed without the benefit of hindsight, the references would not have suggested modifying the prior art compositions in a way that would produce the composition claimed here. 5 The dissent also cites three patents that are of record but not relied on by the examiner. We will not further lengthen this opinion with a discussion of those references. The rejection on appeal is the one made by the examiner, not one that hypothetically could have been made. If the examiner concludes that the prior art supports a different rejection from the one reversed today, she is of course free to reject the claims on that basis.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007