Appeal No. 2006-2627 Page 35
Application No. 09/947,833
the references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those
of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them.” In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d
847, 851, 146 USPQ 183, 186 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, I do not find appellants’
argument persuasive.
Appellants also assert (Brief, page 5), “there is no motivation to combine the
calcium sulfate hemihydrate of Yim with the teachings of O’Leary.” For the reasons set
forth above the evidence of record does not support appellants’ assertion. According to
appellants, “O’Leary suggests the use of a thickener if settling of the bone powder within
the organic liquid is a problem . . . [suggesting] that the composition is intended to
maintain a liquid, flowable state for an extended period of time.” Brief, page 6.
Appellants assert (id.), “if the composition is intended to set into a hardened mass within
a short period of time, settling would not be an issue.” From this, appellants conclude
(id.), the “teachings of O’Leary are manifestly inconsistent with the well-known
properties of calcium sulfate hemihydrate solutions . . ., [which] harden or set rather
quickly as the calcium sulfate hemihydrate reacted with water to form the dehydrate
form.”
I disagree with appellants’ unsupported assertion of the well-known property of
calcium sulfate hemihydrate solutions, to harden quickly. Id. Contrary, to appellants’
assertion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that compositions
comprising calcium sulfate (including calcium sulfate hemihydrate) may be formulated
into a putty, e.g., a semi solid. See, e.g., Hanker (column 2, lines 43-49), “[t]he implant
composition [comprising calcium sulfate hemihydrate] . . . may be made up as a dry mix
which can be moistened with water just prior to use to provide a fluid or semisolid,
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007