Appeal No. 2006-0647
Application No. 10/069,561
According to the Examiner, both Soe and Sugitachi “deal with
wound-treating compositions that may comprise carboxymethyl cellulose,
thrombin, and Factor XIII” (Answer 6); Soe teaches that “low-substituted
carboxymethylcellulose is preferred” (id. at 5); Colombo discloses “methods
of producing low-substituted cellulose ether” (id.), and Edwardson teaches
that “a thrombin-like enzyme may be immobilized . . . through various
activation chemistries . . . [and] [s]uitable supports . . . include cellulose and
cellulose derivatives” (id. at 4). Based on these teachings, the Examiner
concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art . . . to combine the references of the prior art into the object of the
rejected claims” (id. at 5).
Appellants argue that the present claims require “a soluble, trauma-
healing hemostatic cellulose fiber containing (three types of) coagulation
proteins [ ] which rapidly dissolves when contacting blood” (Brief 10), but
Soe “fails to disclose a hemostatic fiber” (id. at 8), and the fibrous cellulose
materials of Colombo and Sugitachi “are not designed for dissolution as
claimed” (id.).
Appellants’ point is well taken, especially as Colombo’s focus is on
producing “carboxyalkyl-cellulose that is practically hydroinsoluble”
(Colombo col. 1, ll. 44-45), and Sugitachi’s carboxymethyl cellulose
structures appear to be insoluble as well, as they are intended to “promote
the formation of stabilized fibrin at the wound site for long periods of time”
(Sugitachi col. 8, ll. 60-61).
That being the case, we see no factual basis for the Examiner’s
assertion that “the collective disclosure of the prior art has shown the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013