Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 45


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                            Page 45                
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

             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 a              
             person of ordinary skill in this art to combine calcium sulfate with demineralized bone in             
             a composition comprising hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and a mixing solution as taught                 
             by both O’Leary and Yim.                                                                               
                    I also disagree with the majority’s assertion that “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” because “[e]ach of the prior art                      
             compositions is disclosed as a complete bone . . . [repair] composition having bone                    
             growth promoting properties. . . .”  Supra, page 11, emphasis added.  Contrary to the                  
             majority’s assertions it is not hindsight to combine the teachings of prior art references             
             where the references themselves, in addition to the knowledge and common sense of a                    
             person of ordinary skill in the art suggest they be combined.46  Despite the majority’s                
             assertion to the contrary (supra, page 1147), this is true even when each prior art                    
             reference teaches a “complete invention”.  Contrary to the majority’s assertion, while a               
             person of ordinary skill in the art may build upon prior accomplishments, and modify the               
             prior art to improve on what has come before, it does not necessarily follow under our                 
             law that any such modification of the prior art is a nonobvious modification.  See, e.g.,              
             Pro-Mold & Tool Co., Inc. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir.                 

                                                                                                                    
             46 See, e.g., In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).                         
             47 According to the majority (supra, page 11, emphasis added), it is only with the benefit of hindsight that
             the references could be combined, because “[e]ach of the prior art compositions is disclosed as a      
             complete bone graft substitute composition having bone growth promoting properties.”                   





Page:  Previous  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007