Appeal 2006-1953
Application 10/195,347
extracellular matrix (also bioremodelable collagenous matrix or
combinations of materials)” (id., citing Schwartz, col. 10, l. 58 to col. 11,
l. 2).
We agree with the Examiner that Schwartz discloses a cartilage repair
device comprising a plug (“insert 16” in Schwartz) and anchor (“delivery
unit 14” in Schwartz) (see, e.g., Schwartz, Fig. 2 and col. 9, ll. 1-24).
However, we do not agree with the Examiner that the cited passage discloses
a plug meeting Appellants’ definition of “naturally occurring extracellular
matrix” (Spec. 6). Schwartz discloses that
[i]t is critical that the insert 16 consists substantially (typically
at least 95% of the inorganic components by weight) of a bio-
absorbable material selected from the group consisting of
hyaluronic acid (e.g. as a fiber matrix), polyglycolic acid (e.g.
as a fiber matrix), collagen, including type I collagen (e.g. as a
sponge matrix), polylactic acid (e.g. as a fiber matrix), fibrin
clot (which can be filled and molded into the delivery unit),
collagen gel (which can be overlayed into a polyglycolic acid
matrix), polydioxane, polyester, alginate or combinations
thereof.
(Schwartz, col. 10, l. 60 to col. 11, l. 2, emphases added.)
We agree with Appellants (see Br. 20) that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how this passage by itself discloses a naturally
occurring extracellular matrix as defined in the Specification. However, the
Examiner argues that Schwartz teaches that the insert/plug “may contain
‘repair factors’ (growth factors) (11:10), chondrocytes, and SIS (11:34).
Schwartz discloses that these components may be a part of the insert
material” (Answer 6).
We agree with the Examiner that the cited passages, taken together,
disclose a cartilage repair device within the scope of claim 1. Schwartz
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013