Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 28


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                            Page 28                
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

             read, process and combine the teachings of the prior art relied upon.29  On this point,                
             our appellate review court has provided guidance to assist the fact-finder in evaluating               
             the prior art as a person of ordinary skill in the art and determining what this                       
             hypothetical person would glean from a full and fair reading of the prior art.                         
                    For example, our appellate reviewing court and its predecessor have explained                   
             that when the prior art recognizes two components to be equivalent, an express                         
             suggestion to substitute one for another need not be present in order to render such                   
             substitution obvious.  In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA                          
             1982).30  In In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980),                      
             the court stated that “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of                 
             which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third           
             composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.  In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442,                  
             445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (1971); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 276-77, 126 USPQ 186,                     
             188 (1960).”  As the Kerkhoven court explained “[i]n the case at bar, [the] appealed                   
             claims . . . require no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried                  
             detergents.”  Id.                                                                                      


                                                                                                                    
             29 The issue of obviousness is not determined by what the references expressly state but by what they  
             would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568, 152
             USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967).                                                                             
             30 On this record, Wironen teaches a composition comprising 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.  Yim discloses that calcium sulfate has both a
             structural matrix function and an osteoinductive function.  Yim, column 8, lines 25-28.  Accordingly, a
             person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been prima facie obvious at
             the time appellants’ invention was made to substitute calcium sulfate for any one of the reagents      
             identified in Wironen that enhance the strength and osteoinduction of the bone repair composition.     






Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007