Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 26


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                            Page 26                
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

             The issue:                                                                                             
                    In my opinion, before the merits of claims 1, 23 and 25 can be reached, two more                
             general questions need to be resolved.  First, would it be prima facie obvious to a                    
             person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine calcium              
             sulfate and demineralized bone in a composition comprising a core of ingredients that is               
             common to both O’Leary and Yim?  Second, if the answer to the first question is yes,                   
             would it be prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the               
             invention was made to add cancellous bone to this composition?                                         
                    In my opinion, when considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill               
             in the art at the time the invention was made 28, the evidence of record compels an                    
             affirmative response to both questions.                                                                


             Analysis:                                                                                              
                    “A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the                   
             prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of              
             ordinary skill in the art.”  Bell, 991 F.2d at 783, 26 USPQ2d at 1531.  The evidence on                
             this record teaches that the formulation of a bone repair composition that comprises                   
             both calcium sulfate and demineralized bone is not new to this art.  As discussed above                
             a person of ordinary skill in this art would be familiar with a variety of bone repair                 
                                                                                                                    
             28  While the majority opines (supra, page 10) that “[d]etermining obviousness under § 103 is not a    
             completely objective analysis,” I propose that “[i]nstead of ascertaining what was subjectively obvious to
             the inventor at the time of invention, [this panel] must ascertain what would have been objectively obvious
             to one of ordinary skill in the art at such time.  Hence, the level of ordinary skill in the art is a factual
             question that must be resolved and considered.”  Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718,    
             21 USPQ2d 1053, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1991), footnote omitted.                                               






Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007