Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
submucosa; vertebrate alimentary tissue; vertebrate respiratory tissue; and
vertibrate genital tissue.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Patel US 5,955,110 Sep. 21, 1999
Cook US 6,206,931 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Schwartz US 6,251,143 B1 Jun. 26, 2001
3. ANTICIPATION BY SCHWARTZ
Claims 1, 2, 7, 19-26, 30-34, 42-45, 50, 53-55, 57, 62-65, 67, 69-75,
77, 80-82, 85, 95-98, 100-103, 107, 119-126, 130-134, 142-148, and 150
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schwartz.2 Of the
rejected claims, Appellants have separately argued claim Groups that are
represented by claims 1, 24, 42, and 65.3
Claim 1 is directed to a cartilage repair device comprising a “plug
comprising a shaped and dried naturally occurring extracellular matrix” and
an anchor to hold it in an opening in articular cartilage. Claim 24 depends
on claim 1 and adds the limitation that the anchor (as well as the plug) is
formed from shaped naturally occurring ECM.
The Examiner points out that Schwartz discloses a cartilage repair
device comprising a plug and an anchor (Answer 3). The Examiner argues
that the “insert 16 is formed of shaped and dried naturally occurring
2 Claims 55, 57, 62-64, 67, 80, 81, 85, 96-98, 100, 142-148, and 150 have
been withdrawn from appeal.
3 Appellants also separately argued Groups represented by claims 30, 31,
and 32, but for reasons that will become apparent, those claim Groups are
adequately represented by claim 24.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013