Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
152 (Reply Br. 2, Suppl. Reply Br. 2). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed
with respect to those claims.
Claims 1-7, 17, 19-34, 42-45, 50-54, 65, 68-79, 82, 83, 92-94, 101-
107, 117, and 119-134 are on appeal.
The claims have been argued in several groups (Br. 19), although
Appellants later requested that the claims of Groups XI through XVI be
considered with the claims of Group I (Suppl. Reply Br. 2). We have
considered the claims of Groups I and XI-XVI together.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 17, 24, 42, 50, 51, 55, 65, and 92 are representative of
the claims in each of Appellants’ Groups, and read as follows:
1. A device for repairing a diseased or damaged portion of articular
cartilage on a bone of a joint, the cartilage having been prepared by forming
an opening therein to remove the diseased or damaged portion, the device
comprising:
a plug configured to be positioned in the opening formed in the
cartilage, the plug comprising a shaped and dried naturally occurring
extracellular matrix, and
an anchor configured to position and hold the plug in the opening.
3. The device of claim 1, wherein the naturally occurring extracellular
matrix comprises comminuted naturally occurring extracellular matrix.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the naturally occurring extracellular
matrix comprises tissue selected from the group consisting of: vertebrate
small intestine submucosa; vertebrate liver basement membrane; vertebrate
bladder submucosa; vertebrate stomach submucosa; vertebrate alimentary
tissue; vertebrate respiratory tissue; and vertebrate genital tissue.
17. The device of claim 1, wherein the plug is crosslinked by a process
selected from the group consisting of: chemical cross-linking and physical
cross-linking.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013